CHRIST OF THE FREEMINERS - IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
CONGRATULATIONS CLASS OF 2011
"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.
§ 2344. Review of orders; time; notice; contents of petition; service
mandanus | brief | addendum | in forma pauperis | incidental mandamus
On the entry of a final order reviewable under this chapter, the agency shall promptly give notice thereof by service or publication in accordance with its rules. Any party aggrieved by the final order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies. The action shall be against the United States. The petition shall contain a concise statement of— (1) the nature of the proceedings as to which review is sought; (2) the facts on which venue is based; (3) the grounds on which relief is sought; and (4) the relief prayed.
SUPREME COURT PLURALITY DECISION (JUSTICE SCALIA) ON FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT JURISIDICTION
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.
COUNSEL
Tim Vollmann and Gwenellen P. Janov (argued), Albuquerque ,
New Mexico , for defendants-appellants The Honorable
Gary LaRance and Jolene Marshall.
Dennis J. Whittlesey (argued), Dickinson Wright PLLC,
Washington D.C. , for plaintiff-cross-appellant Water Wheel
Camp Recreational Area, Inc., and plaintiff-appellee Robert
Johnson.
Ellison Folk and Winter King, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
LLP, San Francisco , California ; Eric Shepard, Office of the
Attorney General, Parker, Arizona , for amicus curiae Colorado
River Indian Tribes.
Carl Bryant Rogers, VanAmberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita &
Gomez, LLP, Santa Fe , New Mexico ; Melody L. McCoy,
Native American Rights Fund, Boulder , Colorado , for amicus
curiae The National American Indian Court Judges Association.
John L. Smeltzer (argued), Environment & Natural Resources
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington
D.C., for amicus curiae United States .
WATER WHEEL CAMP v. LARANCE 8025
Case: 09-17349 06/10/2011 Page: 3 of 31 ID: 7780860 DktEntry: 68-1
Rob Roy Smith, Ater Wynne LLP, Seattle , Washington , for
amicus curiae Nez Perce Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon ,
Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, and the National Congress
of American Indians.
Timothy Ward Woolsey, Nespelem , Washington , for amicus
curiae Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
A tribal court system exercised jurisdiction over a non-
Indian closely held corporation and its non-Indian owner in an
unlawful detainer action for breach of a lease of tribal lands
and trespass. It entered judgment in favor of the tribe. We
examine the extent of an Indian tribe's civil authority over
non-Indians acting on tribal land within the reservation. We
hold that under the circumstances presented here, where there
are no sufficient competing state interests at play, Nevada v.
Hicks , 533 U.S. 353, 359-60 (2001), the tribe has regulatory
jurisdiction through its inherent authority to exclude, independent
from the power recognized in Montana v. United States ,
450 U.S. 544 (1981). Because regulatory jurisdiction exists,
we also consider whether adjudicative jurisdiction exists. In
light of Supreme Court precedent recognizing tribes' inherent
civil authority over non-Indian conduct on tribal land and
congressional interest in promoting tribal self-government, we
conclude that it does. Finally, applying traditional personal
jurisdiction principles, we hold that in this instance, the tribal
court has personal jurisdiction over a non-Indian agent acting
on tribal land.
8026 WATER WHEEL CAMP v. LARANCE
Case: 09-17349 06/10/2011 Page: 4 of 31 ID: 7780860 DktEntry: 68-1
California congressional delegation asks Obama for disaster assistance
Written by Lake County News reports Friday, 06 May 2011 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA – Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA) on Thursday led the writing of a bipartisan letter to President Obama urging him to provide federal disaster assistance for California communities battered by the recent March storms.
Between March 15 and 27, a series of storms swept across Northern California, causing significant damage in 17 counties statewide, including Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties on the North Coast.
The letter stated that damages are estimated to be more than $44.5 million statewide.
“The March storms brought a lot of devastation to communities across California,” Thompson said. “Heavy rain, snow, wind, and flooding battered local homes and infrastructure, causing significant and costly damage. I urge the President to quickly approve federal disaster assistance for our state to help give local communities the resources they need to get back on their feet.”
In total, 25 California Delegation Members who represent communities affected by the March storms signed on to Congressman Thompson's letter, including: Wally Herger (R-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Dan Lungren (D-CA), Jeff Denham (R-CA), David Dreier (R-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), Brian Bilbray (D-CA), Gary Miller (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA), and Pete Stark (D-CA).
“Many of us have had the opportunity to view the damage in our districts first-hand, and it is clear that a major disaster declaration is critical to helping our state recover from these devastating storms,” the letter stated.
Summary of the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act
Quick Links
- EPA's EPCRA website
- The official text of EPCRA is available in the United States Code on FDSys , from the US Government Printing Office
How do I...?
Find regulatory info:
Get involved with EPA regulations
Learn about:
42 U.S.C. §11001 et seq. (1986)
Authorized by Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety. This law is designed to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards.
To implement EPCRA, Congress requires each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The SERCs are required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for each district.
Broad representation by fire fighters, health officials, government and media representatives, community groups, industrial facilities, and emergency managers ensures that all necessary elements of the planning process are represented.
Treatment in the Same Manner as a State
Laws and Regulations
- Treatment in the Same Manner as a State
- Clean Air Act
- Clean Water Act
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
- Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Programs
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Toxic Substances Control Act
- National Environmental Policy Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Several federal environmental laws authorize EPA to treat eligible federally-recognized Indian tribe in the same manner as a state for implementing and managing certain environmental programs.
Below is a list of the environmental statutes with tribal eligibility for regulatory program authorizations:
May 6, 2011
Congress holds EPA hearing
Committee says agency a threat to coal jobs, industry
By BILL ARCHER Bluefield Daily Telegraph The Bluefield Daily Telegraph Fri May 06, 2011, 05:00 AM EDT
BLUEFIELD — During a meeting with the Bluefield Daily Telegraph editorial board on Thursday, Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin said he was “not pleased with the EPA,” and noted that his predecessor, now U.S. Senator Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., filed a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency claiming that the agency “overstepped its bounds,” Tomblin said.
Earlier in the day on Thursday in Washington, D.C., the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment convened the first of a two-part hearing on the EPA's “regulatory guidance on surface mining” as well as the economic impact of the “increasingly heavy-handed regulatory approach in the Appalachian region,” according to a press release from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
“Recently, EPA revoked a Section 404 ‘dredge and fill' permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan, three years after the permit was issued by the Army Corps of Engineers — in full agreement with EPA,” according to the House committee's press release. “This action has raised serious questions about the extent of EPA's authority, considering that the project was well underway when the permit was revoked.”
According to the press release, the EPA's “unchecked actions will threaten one of every four coal mining jobs in the Appalachian region.” The committee's stated purpose in calling for the hearings is “to receive testimony from state regulators, the mining industry, impacted businesses, economists and EPA on surface mining guidance and the issues surrounding it.” Speakers in the first hearing included Michael Gardner, general counsel of Oxford Resources, Dr. Leonard Peters, secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Teresa Marks, director Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and Hal Quinn, president, National Mining Association.
“The deliberate and disruptive policies that have slowed and stopped coal mines from receiving permits to open or expand have consequences that reverberate throughout the region,” Quinn was quoted as stating in a NMA press release. “The consequences begin with the coal supply chain and spread to those that benefit from low-cost coal energy.”
According to Quinn's statement, in just two months, the backlog of permits had grown to 235 applications with a full 190 of them already having been considered complete by the Corps of Engineers. The NMA claimed that the EPA's policies prompted the Energy Information Administration to drop productivity projections in Central Appalachian surface mines by as much as 20 percent.
“This represents a substantial regulatory penalty that will erode companies' competitiveness and threaten more coal jobs,” according to Quinn's quote in the NMA press release. He added that coal miners deserve an answer to the question as to “why their own government at times seems to put so much effort into working against them rather than supporting them and what they do for the country.”
U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the ranking Democrat on the committee was quoted in a press release as stating that coal miners are constantly concerned about their jobs. “The people of southern West Virginia love the natural beauty of our land,” Rahall was quoted as stating. “We want clean water and air. But we want jobs too. We do not condone coal companies failing to ensure the safety of their miners and the well-being of the communities in which they operate. That is simply wrong,” Rahall said.
“But it is also wrong for a federal agency to circumvent the law and treat guidance as binding policy, particularly when that policy targets only one industry in only one region of the country,” Rahall was quoted as stating.
Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA, Dr. David Sunding, University of California-Berkeley, Reed Hopper, Pacific Legal Foundation, Michael Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce are scheduled to appear at the committee's next hearing on May 11.
— Contact Bill Archer at barcher@bdtonline.comSenate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA
Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, established 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon to give Americans clean air and water. The bill, introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), would merge the EPA, which enforces environmental laws, with the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear energy and energy research, into one department.
Burr's statement announcing his bill to eliminate the EPA argues that “duplicative functions” can be eliminated, even though the two departments are completely different:
U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) introduced a bill that would consolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach.
In January, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing the EPA, and several House Republicans have supported that goal, while making numerous attempts to hamstring limits on industrial polluters.
Burr's bill has fifteen co-sponsors, all of them global warming deniers : Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), John McCain (R-AZ), Dan Coats (R-IN), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), David Vitter (R-LA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT).
OPM Launches USAJOBSRecruit.gov
New Website Promotes Agency Collaboration on Governmentwide Recruiting EffortsWashington, DC - The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) launched USAJOBSRecruit.gov, a one-stop gateway to recruitment resources throughout the Federal Government. President Obama's Hiring Reform Initiative highlights the importance of recruiting and hiring top talent to better serve the American people. USAJOBSRecruit provides tools and guidance, and encourages collaborative development of best practices within the Federal recruiting community in a web-based platform. This new website will help ensure that HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers receive accurate and consistent information on recruiting and hiring in the Federal Government.
"USAJOBSRecruit will spur collaboration and innovation, developing and elevating the best strategies for recruiting the best and brightest Americans into government service," said OPM Director John Berry. "This new web-based tool is a cost-effective, sustainable way for agencies to continually improve their recruiting for years to come."
The forums and blogs will serve as an online community where Federal employees with recruiting responsibilities can discuss recruiting challenges and solutions.
USAJOBSRecruit also features:
- Information, resources and multi-media learning tools to ensure guidance is readily available to HR professionals, recruiters and hiring officials;
- A ‘School Sorter' search tool for recruiters to find the right talents and skills;
- The Federal Service Ambassadors Program for Federal employees interested in promoting the exciting careers available in the Federal Government; and
- Knowledge sharing in the areas of workforce planning, recruiting strategies, marketing, and effectiveness.
To decide what to put on USAJOBSRecruit, OPM held focus groups of hiring managers and HR practitioners across the nation. The number one need expressed in the focus groups was for an online environment to discuss and share recruitment practices.
- end -
Our mission is to Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People. OPM supports U.S. agencies with personnel services and policy leadership including staffing tools, guidance on labor-management relations and programs to improve work force performance.
Phone: (202) 606-2402
FAX: (202) 606-2264More News Releases | What's New on Our Site | News & Events
Subject: a bill
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Establishment of Civilian Property Realignment Board.
Sec. 5. Board Meetings.
Sec. 6. Board Duties and OMB Review Process.
Sec. 7. Co-location among Postal Service Properties.
Sec. 8. Realignment of Real Property owned or managed by the Bureau of Overseas Building
Operations.
Sec. 9. Congressional Consideration of Board Recommendations.
Sec. 10. Implementation of Board Recommendations by Executive Agencies.
Sec. 11. Authorization of Appropriation and Funding.
Sec. 12. Pay and Travel Expenses.
Sec. 13. Executive Director.
Sec. 14. Staff.
Sec. 15. Contracting Authority.
Sec. 16. Termination.
Sec. 17. Preclusion of Judicial Review.
Sec. 18. Report by the Board to OMB within Two Years.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to expedite the disposal of unneeded Federal civilian property and realize savings by taking steps to:
(a) create a fair process that will result in the timely disposal and realignment of Federal civilian real property;TERMINATION: WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
Corps of Engineers
Water and wastewater treatment projects, often referred to as "environmental infrastructure" projects,
are outside the Corps of Engineers' main mission areas of commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, and significant aquatic ecosystem restoration. Therefore, as in past years the Budget does not
include funding for these projects, but rather redirects these resources to other, higher-performing projects
that are within the Corps' main missions.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 129 0 -129
Justification
In 2010, the Congress directed funding to water and wastewater treatment projects in the Corps' budget
even though these projects are outside of the Corps' main mission areas. Since 1992, the Congress has
authorized approximately 450 sewage and wastewater treatment projects and has directed hundreds of
millions of dollars toward them. The Corps does not assess the economic and environmental costs and
benefits of these water and wastewater treatment projects and, therefore, has no basis to determine the
value of these projects to the Nation. Providing funding in the Corps of Engineers' budget for environmental
infrastructure projects is not cost effective and duplicates funding for these types of projects in other Federal
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. Congressional
funding for these projects through the Corps bypasses those agencies' processes for setting funding priorities.
The Budget continues to propose no funding for these types of projects for the Corps.TERMINATION: WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT PROGRAM
Department of the Interior
The Administration proposes to eliminate Geological Survey (USGS) grants to 54 Water Resources Research
Institutes, as there is not a Federal need or a clear Federal responsibility for this research.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 7 0 -7
Justification
Each State, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, operates
a Water Resources Research Institute at their land grant institute to conduct applied research on water
quality and availability, as well as drought and flood hazards at the local scale. This research, however, is
not a high priority for USGS, which is responsible for studying water issues across the Nation. As a Federal
science bureau, USGS monitors surface water through the nationwide network of stream gages, assesses
water quality through the National Water Quality Assessment, and studies and models groundwater quality
and availability. These programs at the regional and national scales are used by stakeholders across the
country and take precedent over grants that do not address national needs.TERMINATION: WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION PROGRAM
Department of Agriculture
The Administration proposes to terminate the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program.
The Congress has provided funding entirely to specific projects without any merit-based criteria, such as
cost-effectiveness.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 30 0 -30
Justification
This program was first implemented under the authorities of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534). In 2010,
almost 75 percent of the program was directed to specific projects, eliminating the Natural Resource
Conservation Service's (NRCS's) ability to use project evaluations as a basis for prioritizing funding. In
addition, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget analysis showed that this NRCS program has a lower
economic return than other Federal flood prevention programs (such as those in the Army Corps of Engineers
or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).1
Citations
1 Army Corps of Engineers, 2003 Budget, pp. 294-295.TERMINATION: WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Department of Agriculture
The Administration proposes to eliminate funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS's) Watershed Rehabilitation program as the program's mission is
inconsistent with underlying Federal role in local dam rehabilitation.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 40 0 -40
Justification
Since 2000, the Watershed Rehabilitation program has funded rehabilitation activities for flood control
dams originally constructed with Federal support as dams reach the end of their 50-year design life. Flood
control dams were originally constructed with the understanding that local sponsors would be responsible
for continuing operations and maintenance. Furthermore, local communities have increased the financial risk
of dam failure by allowing residential and commercial development in vulnerable floodplain areas around
dams. The localized benefits of dam rehabilitation should be funded through local sources.REDUCTION: CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
Environmental Protection Agency
The Administration proposes to reduce funding by $947 million total for the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) SRFs provide grants
to States to capitalize their State-run revolving funds, which provide loans to support improvements in
municipal wastewater and drinking water systems. The Administration proposes $1.55 billion for the Clean
Water SRF and $990 million for the Drinking Water SRF. This is a reduction from the historically high
funding levels provided in 2010, but a total of $1 billion more than provided in regular appropriations in
2009.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 3,487 2,540 -947
Justification
The Administration continues robust support for SRFs and is focusing on working with States and
municipalities to enhance their technical, managerial and financial capacity. Future budgets for SRFs
gradually adjust through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about five percent of water
infrastructure spending annually. In 2010, SRFs made available $8.8 billion in financing to local communities
(this does not include American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding).
Federal funding provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and
ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure as EPA works with States and municipalities to
implement its Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy. As part of this policy, the Budget requires that
States use at least 20 percent of their Clean Water SRF capitalization grant and 10 percent of their Drinking
Water capitalization grant for green infrastructure projects. The Administration also recognizes a need,
particularly in disadvantaged communities, for additional Federal assistance in supporting water and
wastewater infrastructure.
The Administration's proposal of $2.5 billion total for SRFs maintains the President's commitment to
helping provide clean and safe water and represents a four-year investment (2009 to 2012) totaling almost
$17 billion. REDUCTION: NONPOINT SOURCE GRANTS
Environmental Protection Agency
The Budget proposes $165 million for Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants, a $36 million reduction from
2010. This decrease reflects the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) shift in emphasis to its core
programs, as well as the fact that the number of nonpoint source sectors has decreased as EPA has brought
formerly nonpoint source sectors such as concentrated animal feeding operations and stormwater under
regulation as point sources.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 201 165 -36
Justification
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants help States implement their own nonpoint source management
programs. Through these grants, States fund nonpoint source staff, watershed planning, and project
implementation to address water pollution runoff from urban, agricultural, and other sources.
In 2012, EPA is emphasizing its core permitting programs that address point source pollution. Additionally,
the number of nonpoint source sectors has declined over time as EPA has brought formerly nonpoint source
sectors such as concentrated animal feeding operations and stormwater under regulation as point
sources. Some of this program's work also is duplicative with the Department of Agriculture conservation
programs.PROGRAM INTEGRITY OVERVIEW
Government-wide
The Administration supports initiatives related to ensuring that Federal agencies are responsible stewards
of taxpayer resources. In fact, improving Federal financial management and eliminating waste are two
key areas of the Administration's Accountable Government Initiative to improve the operation and
effectiveness of Federal agencies.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government wastes billions of American taxpayers' dollars each year, including
billions of dollars paid improperly to individuals, organizations, and contractors, as well as billions of dollars
in debt owed to the Government. In 2010 alone, the Federal Government made an estimated $125 billion
in improper payments. In order to improve Government efficiency and prevent and recapture improper
payments, the President has issued three directives to agencies to prevent and recapture improper payments,
and signed into law new improper payments legislation, since November 2009. To help further drive
Government performance, the President has also set a goal of reducing improper payments by $50 billion
and recapturing at least $2 billion by the end of 2012. The Administration has taken important steps toward
achieving these goals, which have yielded early results. In 2010, the Government-wide improper payment
rate declined to 5.49 percent, a decrease from the 5.65 percent reported in 2009. Agencies also reported that
they recaptured $687 million in improper payments in 2010 -- the highest recapture amount to date. However,
despite these early successful results, the Administration has identified additional tools included in the
Budget that will help drive further progress in reducing and recapturing improper payments.
While agencies sometimes make improper payments, they also have trouble collecting money that is owed
to Federal agencies. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that approximately
60,000 Federal contractors were delinquent on over $7 billion in Federal taxes. In 2008, GAO found that
over 27,000 Medicare providers owed more than $2 billion in tax debt. Through the Federal Payment Levy
Program, the Treasury currently deducts (levies) only up to 15 percent of a payment to Federal contractors
and Medicare providers with delinquent tax debt.
The 2012 Budget includes a number of legislative and administrative reforms on improper payments and
debt collection, which collectively comprise our program integrity efforts. Many of these proposals will
provide savings for the Federal Government (the savings for these proposals are shown in the table on the
following page) and support government-wide efforts to improve the management and oversight of Federal
resources. Collectively, these proposals will result in $167 billion in savings to the Federal Government
over ten years if enacted. In addition, other administrative proposals, while not resulting in direct Federal
savings, will also improve the operation and efficiency of important Federal programs.
The Administration's program integrity proposals are included on the following pages. These include
provisions previously proposed -- such as discretionary allocation adjustments for the Department of Health
and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department
of Labor -- and new proposals for expanded debt collection authorities and to support Federal fraud-detection
technologies. If implemented, all of these proposals could help further improve stewardship of Federal
resources.PARTNERSHIP
FUND FOR PROGRAM INTEGRITY INNOVATION
Executive Office of the President
The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation, which is managed by the Office of Management
and Budget in consultation with Federal, State, local, and other stakeholders, provides funding for Federal,
State, and local agencies to pilot and evaluate innovations to improve service delivery, payment accuracy,
and administrative efficiency across Federal assistance programs. The Partnership Fund targets pilots that
bridge program and agency silos to promote consistent and judicious use of resources, including staff,
information, systems, and processes. In addition to funding pilots that implement and test administrative
changes, the Partnership Fund allows for pilot projects that simulate the effects of more efficient, accurate
methods of service delivery that would require changes to existing regulatory or statutory authorities. These
simulations can inform both the Administration and the Congress about whether changes in authority may
be warranted. As pilots are selected, funding is transferred to the applicable Federal agencies to administer
the pilots in conjunction with Federal agencies, States or localities. The Administration proposes $20 million
in a discretionary allocation adjustment in 2012 to fund pilots, which will improve integrity of program
administration across multiple Federal assistance programs. The 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117) included $37.5 million authorized through 2012 for the Partnership Fund. Justification
The Partnership Fund builds alliances among Federal, State, and local agencies to identify, pilot, and
evaluate new ideas that boost efficiency and prevent improper payments. The Partnership Fund prioritizes
pilots that target programs with high error rates and that also demonstrate high return on investment in
order to yield the greatest savings and efficiencies for taxpayers. For example, a recently funded pilot
simulation to reduce error in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program offers potential savings of over
$100 million annually for a pilot investment of $2 million. This pilot, managed by the Department of the
Treasury, will identify both current and new authorities required to take the pilot to scale. Statute requires
that, in the aggregate, Partnership Fund pilots save at least as much as they cost. Based on projections in
early pilots and pilots under development, the Partnership Fund will be able to use the additional funding
of $20 million to prioritize new projects that, like the EITC pilot, promise a significant return on investment.
Subject: From the Whitehouse
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >
112th Congress 1st Session
____________ ____
A BILL
____________ ____
To expedite disposal of unneeded civilian properties and realize savings.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, Justification
Before considering more significant investments in transitional job models, the Administration seeks to
integrate evidence from recent evaluations and the current demonstration. Three recent random-assignment
evaluations of transitional job programs for ex-offenders and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family
program recipients provide mixed results about the effectiveness of these programs.1,2 The current
demonstration will test enhanced transitional jobs models, designed to provide more substantive subsidized
jobs and better services to help participants succeed in unsubsidized employment. The Administration
hopes to explore whether modifications to the program -- for example, more of a focus on the transition from
the subsidized job -- would improve employment outcomes. While the demonstration is underway, some
funds from the proposed Workforce Innovation Fund could support additional targeted testing of transitional
jobs.
Citations
1 Dan Bloom, Transitional Jobs: Background, Program Models, and Evaluation Evidence, 2010.
2 Cindy Redcross et al, Work After Prison: One Year Findings from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration,
2010. SEC.10. IMPLEMENTATION OF BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS BY EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.
(a) Subject to section 9 of this Act, the agencies shall prepare and carry out each recommendation of the Board transmitted to the Congress by the Director pursuant to section 6(g) of this Act. Preparations to implement recommendations shall begin immediately. The agencies shall commence physical implementation of all such recommendations no later than two years after the date on which the Director transmits a report to the Congress pursuant to (9) An agency shall convey property under this sub-section utilizing the same disposal authorities as in section 10(c)(1) of this Act.
(g) Environmental Considerations.
(1) (A) When implementing the recommended actions for properties that have been identified in the Board's report, as specified in section 6(f), and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection and in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by deed real property with any person.
(B) The head of the disposing agency may require any additional terms and conditions in connection with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. Such additional terms and conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or obligations of the federal agencies under CERCLA section 120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements of CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and section CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
(2) A transfer of real property or facilities may be made under paragraph (1) only if the head of the disposing agency certifies to the Board and Congress that: (A) the costs of all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities otherwise to be paid by the disposing agency with respect to the property or facilities are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the property or facilities to be transferred, as determined by the head of the disposing agency; or
(B) if such costs are lower than the fair market value of the property or facilities, the recipient of the property or facilities agrees to pay the difference between the fair market value and such costs.
(3) In the case of property covered by a certification under paragraph 2(A), the disposing agency may pay the recipient of such property or facilities an amount equal to the lesser of:
(A) the amount by which the costs incurred by the recipient of such property or facilities for all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as specified in such certification; or
(B) the amount by which the costs (as determined by the head of the disposing agency) that would otherwise have been incurred by the Secretary for such restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as so specified.
(4) As part of an agreement under section (g) paragraph (1) of this Act, the head of the disposing agency shall, in accordance with applicable law, disclose to the person to whom the property or facilities will be transferred information possessed by the Agency regarding the environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities described in section (1) that relate to the property or facilities. The Agency shall provide such information before entering into the agreement.
(5) For the purposes of granting time extensions under section 10(a), the Director shall give the need for significant environmental remediation to a piece of property more weight than any other factor in determining whether to grant a two-year extension to implement a Board recommendation.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). (h) No provision of law shall be construed as restricting the use of funds for disposing or realigning Federal civilian real property in accordance with an approved recommendation that gains legal force under section 9, except in the case of a provision of law which specifically refers to a particular asset of Federal civilian real property and expressly states that such restriction shall apply to such asset notwithstanding this Act. section 6(g) of this Act containing the recommendations and complete all such recommendations no later than the end of the six-year period beginning on the date on which the Director transmits a report to the Congress pursuant to section 6(g) of this Act containing the recommendations. For recommendations that will take longer than the six-year period due to extenuating circumstances, agencies shall notify OMB as soon as the circumstance presents itself with an estimated time to complete the recommendation. In such cases, the Director may extend the period for completion of the recommendation for a period of up to an additional two years.
(b) In carrying out any recommendations under this part, the agencies may:
(1) acquire such land, construct such replacement facilities, and conduct such advance planning and design as may be required to transfer functions from one location to another;
(2) provide outplacement assistance to civilian employees employed by the agency at a location subject to a recommendation;
(3) carry out activities for the purposes of environmental restoration and mitigation at any such installation; and
(4) reimburse other Federal agencies for actions performed at the request of the Board with respect to any such recommendation.
(c) Specific Authorities.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the laws that govern the disposal authorities of the Federal agencies, all disposals implemented as a result of a Board recommendation shall be implemented in accordance with sections 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this Act. Where the currently existing disposal authority for an agency is inconsistent with this Act, this Act's provisions control the implementation of a disposal recommended by the Board. To the extent that the disposal authorities are otherwise consistent with this Act, an agency shall implement a recommendation in the Board's report to dispose a property by utilizing its existing disposal authorities, whether it has been delegated disposal authority by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, pursuant to the Federal Property Act, it has an independent disposal authority, or it must work in partnership with the General Services Administration.
(2) In accordance with section 10 of this Act, when implementing a recommendation to consolidate, reconfigure, co-locate, or realign a real property asset, all agencies are authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the approved recommended actions of the Board. Consistent with sections 6 and 9 of this Act, the Board's report may instruct a Federal agency to utilize the expertise of the General Services Administration in carrying out a recommended consolidation, reconfiguration, co-location, or realignment. Any Federal agency, at its discretion, is also authorized, consistent with existing law and funding, to contract with the General Services Administration for assistance or consultation on implementing a recommendation to consolidate, reconfigure, co-locate, or realign a real property asset.
(3) The identification of any Federal civilian real property as an asset to be disposed, consolidated, reconfigured, or otherwise realigned in a report published by the Board temporarily freezes any transaction with respect to that property that would prevent a recommendation from being carried out within the end of the statutory deadline for Congress to consider the Board's report, whether exercised by the agency maintaining custody or control of the property, or an agency acting on behalf of that custodial agency. All such transactions shall remain frozen until the recommended action on the identified property is disapproved by Congress pursuant to section 9(e) of this Act, is withheld from transmission to Congress by the OMB Director, or is not disapproved by Congress pursuant to section 9(e) of this Act. In the event of disapproval or withholding, all such transactions are unfrozen and the agency maintaining custody or control over the property may resume its management of the property unrestricted. Otherwise, consistent with sections 9 and 10 of this Act, an agency shall implement the recommended action.
(d) For any transaction identified, recommended or commenced as a result of this Act, the Board shall determine whether and to what extent an agency shall implement the transaction notwithstanding any legal priorities or requirements to enter into a transaction to convey a Federal civilian real property for less than fair market value or in a transaction that mandates the exclusion of other market participants.
(e) Any recommendation or commencement of a disposal, consolidation, reconfiguration, co-location, or realignment of civilian real property shall not be subject to-
(1) section 545(b)(8) of title 40, United States Code;
(2) sections 550, 554, and 553 of title 40, United States Code;
(3) section 501 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411);
(4) any section of An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property
for Wildlife, or other Purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b);
(5) section 47151 of title 49, United State Code;
(6) sections 107 and 317 of title 23, United States Code;
(7) section 1304(b) of title 40, United States Code;
(8) (9) any other provision of law authorizing the conveyance of real property owned by the Federal Government for no consideration; and
(10) any congressional notification requirement other than that in section 545 of title 40, United States Code.
(f) Public Benefit.
(1) Consistent with section 6(f) of this Act, the Board shall submit to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary of HUD), on the same day it submits its report to the Director of the OMB, all known information on the buildings or properties that are listed in the separate list of properties intended for conveyance under a public benefit conveyance program authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act. Within 60 calendar days the Secretary of HUD must report to the Board on the suitability of all the properties on this list for use as a property benefitting the mission of assistance to the homeless.
(2) Within 90 calendar days of the Board's first submission of its report to the Director of the OMB, any representatives of the homeless proposing interest in the use of property that the Board has determined should be conveyed under any of the public benefits authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, may submit a notice of interest containing the following to the Board and to the Secretary of HUD:
a. a description of the homeless assistance program that the representative proposes to carry out at the installation;
b. an assessment of the need for the program;
c. a description of the extent to which the program is or will be coordinated in the communities in the vicinity of the property with the local Continuum of Care, as defined by Section 1301 of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009;
d. a description of grants currently funded through the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance programs;
e. a description of the buildings and property that are necessary in order to carry out the program;
f. a description of the financial plan, the organization, and the organizational capacity of the representative to carry out the program;
g. an assessment of the time required in order to commence carrying out the program; and
15
h. The ability of the provider to financially and clinically support a homeless use.
(3) The Secretary of HUD shall review and certify submissions from
representatives of the homeless and submit to the Board an assessment of the validity and merits of the notice of interest within 120 calendar days from the date the Board submits its report to the OMB Director. In the case where more than one notice of interest is entered for a property, the Secretary shall indicate to the Board which planned use of the property for the homeless has more merit.
(4) Within 90 calendar days of the Board's submission to the Director of the OMB and public release of the Board's report, any parties proposing interest, for a use that is not homeless assistance, in the property that the Board has listed pursuant to section 6(f)(2) of this Act, may submit a notice of interest to the Board and to the Federal agency that is otherwise tasked by law to review applications for the statutory public benefit conveyance program under which the party is applying. The notice of interest must contain the information otherwise required in an application under the law creating the conveyance program and must be for a program authorized by a provision of law listed in section 10(e) of this Act.
(5) Federal agencies tasked with reviewing applications for public benefit conveyance programs, that receive notices of interest with information pertaining to the certification of the validity of a proposed public benefit conveyance that is not for homeless assistance and is authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, shall review and certify submissions from parties proposing such future use for the property and submit to the Board an assessment of the validity and merits of the information contained in the notice of interest within 120 calendar days from the date the Board submits its report to the OMB Director. In the case where more than one notice of interest is entered for a property, the head of the reviewing agency shall indicate to the Board which planned use of the property has more merit.
(6) To give disposing agencies instruction as to the final disposition of the properties in its inventory that have been recommended for a public benefit conveyance program, subject to section 9 of this Act, the Board shall compile all assessments resulting from submitted notices of interest, for any of the public benefit conveyance programs authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, that have been submitted to it on the list of properties that the Board deemed suitable for conveyance under a public benefit program, and shall forward them to the agencies that maintain custody and control over the civilian real properties to be conveyed.
(7) In the event a property reviewed by HUD is found to be fit for use by the homeless and HUD has identified a representative of the homeless whose notice of interest is certified, or, in the event of more than one notice of interest on the
16
property, whose notice of interest is deemed to have the most merit by HUD, the agency maintaining custody or control of the property, in accordance with section 10 of this Act, shall commence conveyance of the property to that representative of the homeless, subject to section 9 of this Act. In the event a reviewed property is found to be unfit for use by the homeless, or there is no identified notice of interest on the property by a representative of the homeless, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall then look to whether there are any parties that have expressed interest in the property for one of those uses authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act that are not homeless assistance and whether any Federal reviewing agency has certified one of those uses. If so, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control of the property shall commence conveyance of the property to that party that proposed the certified use, subject to section 9 of this Act. In the event that there is more than one party that has expressed interest in the property in this manner, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall have the discretion to choose among them, but shall look to where the property will be used for its highest and best use.
(8) In the event a property does not qualify for, or there is no interest in a property reviewed for, one of those uses authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall have the discretion to choose among any other remaining ways to implement a disposition of the property, subject to section 9 of this Act.
(9) An agency shall convey property under this sub-section utilizing the same disposal authorities as in section 10(c)(1) of this Act.
(g) Environmental Considerations.
(1) (A) When implementing the recommended actions for properties that have been identified in the Board's report, as specified in section 6(f), and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection and in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by deed real property with any person.
(B) The head of the disposing agency may require any additional terms and conditions in connection with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. Such additional terms and conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or obligations of the federal agencies under CERCLA section 120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements of CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and section CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
(2) A transfer of real property or facilities may be made under paragraph (1) only if the head of the disposing agency certifies to the Board and Congress that:
17
(A) the costs of all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities otherwise to be paid by the disposing agency with respect to the property or facilities are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the property or facilities to be transferred, as determined by the head of the disposing agency; or
(B) if such costs are lower than the fair market value of the property or facilities, the recipient of the property or facilities agrees to pay the difference between the fair market value and such costs.
(3) In the case of property covered by a certification under paragraph 2(A), the disposing agency may pay the recipient of such property or facilities an amount equal to the lesser of:
(A) the amount by which the costs incurred by the recipient of such property or facilities for all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as specified in such certification; or
(B) the amount by which the costs (as determined by the head of the disposing agency) that would otherwise have been incurred by the Secretary for such restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as so specified.
(4) As part of an agreement under section (g) paragraph (1) of this Act, the head of the disposing agency shall, in accordance with applicable law, disclose to the person to whom the property or facilities will be transferred information possessed by the Agency regarding the environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities described in section (1) that relate to the property or facilities. The Agency shall provide such information before entering into the agreement.
(5) For the purposes of granting time extensions under section 10(a), the Director shall give the need for significant environmental remediation to a piece of property more weight than any other factor in determining whether to grant a two-year extension to implement a Board recommendation.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). (h) No provision of law shall be construed as restricting the use of funds for disposing or realigning Federal civilian real property in accordance with an approved recommendation that gains legal force under section 9, except in the case of a provision of law which specifically refers to a particular asset of Federal civilian real property and expressly states that such restriction shall apply to such asset notwithstanding this Act. transfer, from the gross proceeds to an executive agency, amounts to cover the necessary costs associated with the disposal of property.
(3) Net proceeds (which are gross proceeds received from the disposal of any civilian real property pursuant to a recommendation of the Board, less the amounts transferred from this account under section 11(b)(2)(A) and (c)(2) of this Act), shall be divided between the General Fund of the Treasury, Federal executive agencies (for the purpose of real property management reinvestment), and the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. On an annual basis, the OMB Director shall determine how the net proceeds shall be distributed, through transfer, between the General Fund, Federal agencies, and the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund, but in no case shall the General Fund receive less than sixty percent of the net proceeds. In support of these duties, the Board, with the consent of the OMB Director, may transfer, from the Space Management Fund, to a Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, amounts:
(A) to cover the necessary costs associated with-
(i) consolidation, co-location, and reconfiguration actions;
(ii) other actions taken to otherwise realize operational efficiencies, including but not limited to such actions as environmental restoration; and
(B) for outplacement assistance to Federal employees who work at a Federal property that is affected by actions taken under this section, and whose employment would be terminated as a result of such disposal, consolidation, or other realignment.
(4) The amounts transferred pursuant to section 11(c)(3)(A)-(B) under this sub-section must be obligated by the recipient agency within three years of the transfer. Any amounts that are not obligated within three years shall be transferred back to the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. SEC.13. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(a) The Board shall appoint an Executive Director.
(b) For the purposes of this Act, the Board may appoint an Executive Director without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service.
(c) Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(2), the Executive Director shall be paid at the rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, except that an individual so appointed may not receive pay outside of the pay range of the Senior Executive Service. SEC.14. STAFF
(a) Subject to paragraph (b), the Executive Director, with the approval of the
Board, may appoint and fix the pay of additional personnel.
(b) The Executive Director may make such appointments without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay for GS-15 under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Upon request of the Executive Director, the head of any Federal department or
agency may detail any of the personnel of that department or agency to the Board to assist the Board in carrying out its duties under this part. The Executive Director, with the approval of the Board, is authorized to request both reimbursable and non-reimbursable detailees.
SEC.15. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY. (a) The Board may procure by contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary
or intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) The Board may lease space and acquire personal property. SEC.16. TERMINATION.
The Board shall cease operations and terminate 12 years from the date of the enactment of this Act. This Act shall expire 180 calendar days after that date.
SEC. 17. PRECLUSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
The following actions shall not be subject to judicial review:
(a) Actions of the Board under Section 6 of this Act.
(b) Actions of the Director of OMB under Section 6(g) of this Act.
(c) Actions of the Board, the Secretary of HUD, and Federal agencies under Section 10(f) of this Act.
WRIT, in law, is a formal commission from the crown or other supreme executive officer to an inferior executive officer or to a private person, enjoining some act or omission. The word represents the Latin brevis or breve (both forms are found, the latter more commonly), so called, according to Bracton, from its shortly expressing the intention of the framer, " quia breviter et paucis verbis intentionem proferentis exponit." The breve can be traced back as far as the Codex Theodosianus (438 A.D.), where one of its meanings is that of an official report or letter. It bears a similar meaning in some of the capitularies of the Frankish kings. The interdictum of Roman law some-times represents the writ of English law; «.¡7., there is con-siderable likeness between the Roman interdictum de libero homine exhibendo and the English writs of habeas corpus and de homine replegiando. From Roman law the breve passed into the Liber Feudorum and the canon law, in both in a sense differing from that at present borne by the writ of English law. The breve testatum of the Liber Feudorum was an instrument in writing made on the land at the time of giving seisin by the lord to the tenant, and attested by the seals of the lord and the pares curias or other witnesses. In England such witnesses were part of the inquest, and joined in the verdict in case of disputed right until 12 Edw. II. st. 1, c. 2. The breve testatum in England developed into the FEOFFMENT (q.v.), later into the deed of grant (see REAL ESTATE) ; in Scotland into the charter, and later into the disposition. In canon law breve denoted a letter under the pope's seal. In old English ecclesiastical law a brief meant letters patent issued out of Chancery to churchwardens or other officers for the collection of money for church purposes. Such briefs were regulated by 4 Anne c. 14, but are now obsolete, although they are still to be found named in one of the rubrics in the communion service, of the Book of Common Prayer. In English legal practice brief now denotes the written instructions put into the hands of counsel to form the basis of his case. It was probably so called from its at first being only a copy of the original writ. Such a brief is in Scotland called a memorial. History The writ in English law still occupies a very important of writ in position, which can scarcely be understood without a |!'"^llsh sketch of its history. To a certain extent this history has already been given under PLEADING, for the whole theory of pleading depends in the last resort upon the writ. Writ or breve was at first used in a less technical sense than that which it afterwards assumed: thus in the Leges Henrici Frirni it simply means a letter from the king, and in the Assize of Clarendon (1166) imbreviari means to be registered. It became formalized by the reign of Henry II., and precedents are given by Glanvill. The writ process was at that date the foundation of all civil justice in the king's court, and of much in the lower courts, and was a profitable source of revenue to the exchequer. Every writ had to be purchased (breve perquirere was the technical term). This purchase developed in later times into the payment of a fine to the king where the damages were laid above £40. The usual scale was 6s. 8d. for every 100 marks claimed. In suing out a writ of covenant, the basis of the proceedings in levying a fine (see ENTAIL), the king was entitled to his primer Jine, i.e., one-tenth of the annual value of the land concerned. The sale of writs was forbidden by Magna Charta and other statutes in certain cases, especially that of the writ de odio et atia in favour of the liberty of the subject. A solicitor was so called because his original duty was to solicit or sue out a writ and take the due proceedings by paying the proper line. The costs of a writ purchased were first allowed to a successful demandant by the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I. c. 1. Through the Norman period the pre-rogative of issuing writs seems to have been undisputed. Glanvill's precedents did not exhaust all possible forms, for in the time of Bracton, in the 13th century, it was still possible to frame new writs at the pleasure of the crown. The Provisions of Oxford in 1258 put an end to this by enacting that the chancellor should not seal anything out of course (i.e., any writ for which there was no precedent) by the will of the king, but that he should do it by the council. In 1285 the Statute of Westminster the Second, 13 Edw. I. st. 1, c. 24, re-established the power of the crown within certain limits, that is, in causes of action in a similar case falling under the same law (in, consimili casu cadente sub eodem jure) as those for which precedents of writs already existed in the Chancery (see TRESPASS, TROVER). These precedents were at an early date recorded in the Registrum Brevium, called by Sir Edward Coke the oldest book in the common law, Apart from the powers given by the statute, new writs could only be issued by the authority of parliament, and writs are sometimes found set out in statutes, especially in the Statutum Wallise, 12 Edw. I. c. 7, where precedents of the most usual writs will be found. The Statute of Westminster the Second itself contained precedents of the writ of formedon and of many others. The original flexibility of the writ was thus limited within comparatively narrow bounds. The right to the issue of the writ determined the right of action. So essential was the writ that it was a legal axiom in Bracton that no one could sue at law without a writ, and it was called by Coke, in his introduction to Littleton, 'o the heartstrings of the common law." As such it occupied an important place in some of the leading statutes dealing with constitutional rights. The Statute of Marl-bridge, 52 Hen. III. c. 22, forbade a lord to distrain his freeholders to answer for their freeholds, or for anything touching their freeholds, without the king's writ. By 25 Edw. III. st. 5, c. 4, it was accorded, asserted, and stablished that none should be taken by petition or sug-gestion made to the king or his council unless by indict-ment or presentment in due manner or by process made by writ original at the common law. 42 Edw. III. c. 3 provided that no man should be put to answer without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original according to the old law of the land. Both these statutes were recited and the general principle confirmed by 16 Car. I. c. 10. Uniformity of procedure was secured by 27 Hen. VIII. c. 24, by which all writs were to be in the king's name in a county palatine or liberty, but tested by those who had the county palatine or liberty. It was not until 1731 that, by virtue of 4 Geo. II. c. 26, writs were framed in the English language. They had previously been in Latin ; this accounts for the Latin names by wdiich a large number are still known. The writ was issued from the common law side of the Chancery, and was in the special charge of the manager and petty bag offices. Though issuing from the king's Chancery, it did not necessarily direct the trial of the question in the king's court. In whatever court it was returnable, it called in the aid of the sheriff as executive officer. It was either addressed to him or, if addressed to the party alleged to be in default, it concluded with a threat of con-straint by the sheriff in the event of disobedience, generally in those terms, " et, nisi feceris, vicecomes de N. faciat ne amplius clamorem audiam pro defectu justitiae." If the writ was returnable in the county court or the lord's court, the sheriff or the lord sat as the deputy of the king, not by virtue of his inherent jurisdiction. The writ was not necessary for the initiation of proceedings in these courts or before the justices in eyre (who sat as judges of the county court), but a custom seems to have grown up of suing out a writ from the king where the claim was above 40s. Cases were transferred from the lord's court to the county court by writ of tolt (so called because it removed, tollit, the case), from the latter to the king's court by writ of pone (so called from its first word). By Magna Charta the power of bringing a suit in the king's court in the first instance by writ of praecipe was taken away, and the writ was thenceforth only returnable in the king's court where the tenant held of the king in capite, or where the lord had no court or abandoned his right. Hence it became a common form in the writ of right to allege that the lord had renounced his court (dominus remisit curiam) so as to secure trial in the king's court. Besides being used for the trial of disputes, writs addressed to sheriffs, mayors, commissioners, or others were in constant use for financial and political purposes, e.g., for the collection of fifteenths, scutage, tallage, &c, for summons to the council and later to parliament, and for recalling a parliament, the last by means of the rarely occurring writ de revocatione parlia-ments.
There were several divisions of writs (excluding those purely financial and political), the most important being that into original and judicial, the former (tested in the name of the king) issued to bring a suit before the proper court, the latter (tested in the name of a judge) issued during the progress of a suit or to enforce judgment. Original were either optional, i.e., giving an option of doing a certain act or of showing cause why it was not done, beginning with the words pirxcipe quod reddat, the principal example being the writ on which proceedings in a common recovery (see ENTAIL) were based, or per-emptory, i.e., calling on a person to do a certain act, beginning with the words si A fecerit te securum. Original were also either de cursu or magistralia, the former those fixed in form and depending on precedent, the latter those framed by the masters in Chancery under the powers of the Statute of Westminster the Second. They were also either general or special, the latter setting forth the grounds of the demand with greater particularity than the former. By 5 Geo. II. c. 27 special writs were confined to causes of action amounting to £10 or upwards. There was also a division of writs into writs of right (ex dehito justitix), such as habeas corpus, and prerogative writs (ex gratia), such as mandamus (see PREROGATIVE). Coke and other authorities mention numerous other divisions, but those which have been named appear to be the principal.
The most interesting form of writ from the historical point of view was the writ of right (breve de recto), called by Blackstone " the highest writ in the law," used at first for debt and other personal claims, afterwards confined to the recovery of real estate as the writ of right par excellence. It was so called from the words plenum rectum contained in it, and was the remedy for obtaining justice for ouster from or privation of the freehold. By it property as well as possession could be recovered. It generally lay in the king's court, as has been said, by virtue of a fictitious allegation. In that case it was addressed to the sheriff and was called a writ of right close. It was also a writ of right close where the lands in dispute were held in antient demesne. When addressed to the lord and tried in his court, it was generally a writ of right patent. After the appearance of the tenant the demandant in a writ of right counted, that is, claimed against the tenant according to the writ, but in more precise terms, the writ being as it were the embryo of the future count. The trial was originally by battle (see TRIAL), but in the reign of Henry II. an alternative pro-cedure was introduced, interesting as the earliest example of the substitution of something like the JURY (q.v.) system for the judicial combat. A writ de magna assisa eligenda was directed to the sheriff commanding him to return four knights of the county and vicinage to the court, there to return twelve other knights of the vicinage to try upon oath the question contained in the writ of right (technically called the mise). This mode of trial was known as trial by the grand assize. Generally the whole of the sixteen knights were sworn, though twelve was a sufficient number. The last occasion of trial by the grand assize was in 1835. But long before that date possessory had from their greater convenience tended to supersede proprietary remedies, and in most cases the title was sufficiently determined by the assizes of other kinds, especially that of novel disseisin and later by pro-ceedings in ejectment (see POSSESSION). The oath of the champion on proceedings in a writ of right where the alternative of the judicial combat was accepted was regulated by statute, 3 Edw. I. c. 41. The writ of right is also interesting as being the basis of the law of LIMITATION (q.v.). By the Statute of Merton, 20 Hen. III. c. 8, no seisin could be alleged by the demandant but from the time of Henry II. By 3 Edw. I. c. 39 the time was fixed at the reign of Richard I., by 32 Hen. VIII. c. 2 at sixty years at the most. There were other writs of right with special names, e.g., the writ of right by the custom of London for land in London, the writ of right of advowson, brought by the patron to recover his right of presentation to a benefice, and the writs of right of dower and de rationabili parte, the latter brought by coparceners or brothers in gavelkind. There were also writs in the nature of a writ of right, e.g., formedon, brought by a reversioner on discontinuance by a tenant in tail and given by the Statute De Donis (see ENTAIL) ; escheat, brought by the lord where the tenant died without an heir; ne injuste vexes, to prohibit the lord from exacting services or rents beyond his due ; de nativo habendo, to recover the inheritance in a villein; and the little writ of right close according to the custom of the manor, to try in the lord's court the right of the king's tenants in antient demesne.
Up to 1832 an action was (except as against certain privileged persons, such as attorneys) commenced by original writ, and writ practically became the equivalent of action, and is so used in old books of practice, such as Booth on Real Actions. The law was gradually altered by legislation and still more by the introduction of fictitious proceedings in the common law courts, to be described later, by which the issue of the original writ was suspended, except in real actions, which were of comparatively rare occurrence. The original writ is no longer in use in civil procedure, an action being now in all cases commenced by the writ of summons, a judicial writ, a procedure first introduced in 1832 by 2 Will. IV. c. 39. In the follow-ing year an immense number of the old writs were abolished by 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 27. An exception was made in favour of the writ of right of dower, writ of dower wide nihil habet, QUARE IMPEDIT (q.v.), and EJECTMENT (q.v.), and of the plaints for free bench and dower in the nature of writs of right. Ejectment was remodelled by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852; the other writs and plaints remained up to the Common Law Procedure Act, 1860, by which they were abolished. Other writs which have been superseded by simpler proceedings, generally by ordinary actions, are those of the four assizes of novel disseisin, juris utrum, mort d'auncester, and darrein presentment (see ASSIZE), estrepement and waste (see WASTE), monstrans de droit (see PETITION), NUISANCE (q.v.), PARTITION (q.v.), prxmunire (see TREASON), QUO WARRANTO (q.v.), SCIRE FACIAS (q.v.), subpoena (see TRUST), and warrantia chartx (see WARRANTY). The number of writs was so large that any exhaustive list of them is almost impossible, but a few of those of more special interest which have become obsolete may be shortly Obsolete, mentioned. Admensuratio lay against persons usurping writs, more than their share of property. It was either dotis or pasturx, the latter, like the Scotch " souming and rouming," being the remedy for surcharge of common. Alias and pluries writs were issued when a previous writ had been disobeyed. Attaint lay to inquire by a jury of twenty-four whether a jury of twelve had given a false verdict. It was superseded in the 16th century by the practice of setting aside a verdict or granting a new trial, and was finally abolished by 6 Geo. IV. c. 50. Audita querela was a means of relieving a defendant by a matter of discharge occurring after judgment. After having been long practically superseded by stay of execution it was finally abolished by the rules made under the Judicature Act, 1875. Capias, latitat, and quominus are interesting as showing the extraordinary mass of fictitious allegation in the old procedure of the common law courts before 1832. By capias ad respondendum followed by alias and pluries the Court of Common Pleas was enabled to take cognizance of an action without the actual issue of an original writ. The capias was a judicial writ issued to follow an original writ of trespass quia clausum /regit. The issue of the original writ and after a time the issue of the capias became mere fictions, and proceedings com-menced with the issue of another writ called capias testatum. On return of the writ the plaintiff elected to proceed with a cause of action other than trespass, and the real merits of the case were eventually reached in this tortuous manner. After being served with the capias the defendant was bound to put in common or special bail, the former being sufficient in all but exceptional cases. Here again there was a fiction, for his common bail were John Doe and Richard Roe. The same fictitious pair also appeared on the side of the plaintiff as his pledges for the due prosecution of his action. By latitat and quominus the Courts of King's Bench and Exchequer respectively assumed jurisdiction by a further series of fictions over ordinary civil actions. The writ of latitat, following the bill of Middlesex, itself in later times generally a fiction, alleged that the defendant was in hiding out of Middlesex, after committing a trespass quia clausum /regit, for which he was in the custody of the king's marshal in the Marshalsea prison. The real cause of action was then stated in what was called the ac etiam clause. Writs filed in the King's Bench and Common Pleas were in the custody of an officer of each court called the custos brevium. The writ of quominus alleged that the plaintiff was the king's debtor and that through the defendant's default he was unable to discharge the debt. Deceit or disceit lay for the redress of anything done deceitfully in the name of another, but was especially used to reverse a judgment in a real action obtained by collusion. Distraint of knighthood was a mode of obtaining money for the crown by the exercise of the prerogative of forcing every one who held a knight's fee under the crown to be knighted or to pay a fine. The earliest extant writ was issued in 1278. It was abolished by 16 Car. I. c. 20. Entry was a possessory remedy against one alleged to hold land unlawfully. It was divided into a large number of kinds, and was the subject of much of the old real property learning. The ones most commonly occurring were the writs of entry in the per and in the post, the former alleg-ing, the latter not, the title of the heir from the original disseisor. When writ had come to be equivalent in mean-ing to action, one of the divisions of possessory actions was into writs of entry and writs of assize. A special writ of entry for dower was given by 6 Edw. I. c. 7. Excommunicato capiendo was the authority for arresting an excommunicated person and detaining him until he was reconciled to the church, when he was liberated by the writ de excommunicato deliberando. These proceedings were abolished and the writ de contumace capiendo substi-tuted by 57 Geo. III. c. 127 (see EXCOMMUNICATION). Ilxrelico comburendo was issued on certificate of conviction for heresy by the ecclesiastical court. A case of burning two Arians under this writ occurred as lately as the reign of James I. It was abolished by 29 Car. II. c. 9. Homine replegiando, mainprize, and odio et atia (or bono et mold) were all ancient means of securing the liberty of the sub-ject, long superseded by the more effective procedure of habeas corpus. The last of the three enjoined the sheriff to inquire whether a committal on suspicion of murder ' was on just cause or from malice and ill-will. It was regulated by Magna Charta and the Statute of Westminster the Second, but, having been abused to the advantage of sheriffs, it was taken away by 28 Edw. III. c. 9. Nisi prius was given by the Statute of Westminster the Second, 13 Edw. I. c. 30. Its place is now taken by the com-mission of NISI PRIUS (q.v.). Orando pro rege et regno, before the present Book of Common Prayer, enjoined public prayers for the high court of parliament. Privilege com-manded the release of a prisoner entitled to privilege of parliament. Protection was given for enabling a man to be quit of suits brought against him while absent beyond seas. It was dealt with by a large number of old statutes, but" none has been issued since 1692. Rebellion was a means of enforcing obedience to the process of the Court of Chancery. In modern procedure attachment takes its place. Rege inconsulto commanded judges of a court not to proceed in a case which might prejudice the king until his pleasure should be known. Replevin was a survival of the most archaic law. The procedure consisted of writ on writ to an almost unlimited extent. It originally began by the issue of a writ of replevin or replegiari facias. The case might be removed from the county court to a superior court by writ of recordari facias loquelam. If the dis-trainor claimed a property in the goods distrained, the question of property or no property was determined by a writ de proprietate probanda, and, if decided in favour of the distrainor, the distress was to be returned to him by writ de retorno habendo. If the goods were removed or concealed, a writ of capias in withernam enabled the sheriff, after due issue of alias and pluries writs, to take a second distress in place of the one removed. It is said that the question whether goods taken in withernam could be replevied was the only one which the Admirable Crichton found himself unable to answer. For the modern practice, see DISTRESS, REPLEVIN. Reslitutione extracti ab ecclesia lay for restor-ing a man to a sanctuary from which he had been wrong-fully taken (see SANCTUARY). Secta lay for enforcing the duties of tenants to their lord's court, e.g., secta ad molen-dinum, where the tenants were bound to have their corn ground at the lord's mill. Seisina habenda allowed delivery of lands of a felon to the lord after the king had had his year, day, and waste (see WASTE). Vi laica removenda is curiously illustrative of ancient manners. It lay where two parsons contended for a church, and one of them entered with a great number of laymen and kept out the other by force. As lately as 1867 an application for the issue of the writ was made to the Chancery Court of the Bermuda Islands, but refused on the ground that the writ was obsolete, and that the same relief could be obtained by injunction. On appeal this refusal was sustained by the privy council.
Of writs now in use, other than those for elections, all are Writs judicial, or part of the PROCESS (q.v.) of the court, except per- now iu haps the writ of error in criminal cases. They are to be hereafter use. issued out of the central office of the Supremo Court, or the office of the clerk of the crown in Chancery, provision having been made by the Great Seal (Officers) Act, 1874, and the Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879, for the transfer on the next vacancy of the duties of the clerk of the petty bag to those officers. By the latter Act the record and writ clerks, previously officers of the Chancery Division, were abolished. By 40 and 41 Vict. c. 41 the wafer great seal or the wafer privy seal may be attached to writs instead of the impression of the great or privy seal. The judicial writs issue chiefly, if not entirely, from the central office, with which the old crown office was incorporated by the Act of 1879. The crown office had charge of writs occurring in crown practice, such as quo warranto and certiorari.
In local civil courts, other than county courts, writs are usually Judicial issued out of the office of the registrar, or an officer of similar writs, jurisdiction. By 35 and 36 Viet. c. 86 writs of execution from such courts for sums under £20 may be stamped or sealed as of course by the registrar of a county court, and executed as if they had issued from the county court. In county court practice the WARRANT (q.v.) corresponds generally to the writ of the Supreme Court. Most of the present law on the subject of writs is contained in the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, Ord. xlii.-xliv., and in the Crown Office Rules, 1886. Both sets of rules contain numerous pre-cedents in their schedules. By Ord. ii. r. 8 of the rules of 1883 all writs (with certain exceptions) are to be tested in the name of the lord chancellor, or, if that office be vacant, in the name of the lord chief justice. The main exceptions are those which occur in crown practice, which are tested by the lord chief justice. The writ of error bears the tests of the king or queen, '' witness our-selves." Before the issue of most writs a praecipe, or authority to the proper offices to issue the writ, is necessary. This is of course not to be confounded with the old original writ of prmcipe. Writs affecting land must generally be registered in order to bind ,the land (see REGISTRATION). A writ cannot as a rule be served on Sunday (see SUNDAY). Some of the more important modern writs (other than those of an extrajudicial nature) may be shortly noticed. HABEAS CORPUS, MANDAMUS, and PROHIBITION (qq.v.) have been already treated. Writs are generally, unless where the contrary is stated, addressed to the sheriff. Abatement or nocu-mento amovendo enjoins the removal of a nuisance in pursuance of a judgment to that effect. Ad quod damnum is for the purpose of inquiring whether a proposed crown grant will be to the damage of the crown or others. It is still in use, and recent examples will bo found in the London Gazette. If the inquiry be determined in favour of the subject, a reasonable fine is payable to the exchequer by 27 Edw. I. st. 2. Attachment is issued as a means of support-ing the dignity of the court by punishment for contempt of its orders (see CONTEMPT OF COURT). Since the Judicature Acts a uniform practice has been followed in all the branches of the High Court, and a writ of attachment can now only be issued by leave of the court or a judge after notice to the party against whom it is to be issued. Capias : the old writs of capias ad satisfaciendum and capias utligatum may still bo used, but their importance has been much diminished since the alterations made in the law by the Debtors Act, 1869, and the abolition of civil outlawry (see OUTLAW). Certiorari is a writ in very frequent use, by which the pro-ceedings of an inferior court are brought up for review by the High Court. In general it lies for excess of jurisdiction as mandamus does for defect. The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, makes the writ no longer necessary where a special case has been stated by a court of quarter sessions. Delivery enforces a judgment for the delivery of property without giving the defendant (unless at the option of the plaintiff) power to retain it on payment of the assessed value. Distringas lay to distrain a person for a crown debt or for his appearance on a certain day. Its operation has been much curtailed by the substitution of other proceedings by 28 and 29 Vict. c. 104, and the rules of the Supreme Court. It now seems to lie only against inhabitants for non-repair of a highway. Dis-tringas nuper vicecomitem is a writ calling on an ex-sheriff to account for the proceeds of goods taken in execution. Elegit is founded on the Statute of Westminster the Second, and is so named from the words of the writ, that the plaintiff has chosen (elegit) this particular mode of satisfaction. It originally ordered the sheriff to seize a moiety of the debtor's land and all his goods, save his oxen and beasts of the plough. By 1 and 2 Vict. c. 110 the elegit was extended to include the whole of the lands, and copy-holds as well as freeholds. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, an elegit no longer applies to goods. Error, the only example of an original writ remaining, was at one time largely used in both civil and criminal proceedings. It was abolished in civil procedure by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, and proceedings in error by the rules made under the Judicature Act, 1875. A writ of error to the Queen's Bench Division still lies in criminal cases, though it is rarely brought, for it only lies for mistakes appearing on the record, and recent legislation has given large powers of amending such mistakes. The fiat of the attorney-general is neces-sary before it can be sued out. Exigent (with proclamation) forms part of the process of outlawry now existing only against a criminal. It depends on several statutes, commencing in 1344, and is specially mentioned in the Statute of Provisors of Edward III., 25 Edw. III. st. 6. Extent is the writ of execution issued by the crown for a crown debt of record. The sale of chattels seized under an extent takes place under a writ of venditioni exponas. A crown debtor is entitled to an extent in aid against a person indebted to him. Where a crown debtor has died a writ reciting his death, and so called diem clausit cxtremum, issues against his property. Fieri facias is the ordinary writ of execution on a judgment commanding the sheriff to levy the sum, interest, and costs on the personal pro-perty of the party. Where the sheriff has not sold the goods, venditioni exponas issues to compel him to do so. Where the party is a beneficed clergyman, the writ is one of fieri facias de bonis ecelesiasticis or of sequestrarifacias (addressed to the bishop). The latter writ also issues in other cases of an exceptional nature, as against a corporation and to seize a pension. It is addressed to commissioners, not to the sheriff. Habere facias possessionem is given to the owner of a tithe or rent charge, enabling him to have possession of the lands chargeable therewith until arrears due to him are paid (see TITHES). Indicavit is still nominally grantablo under the Statute De Conjunciim Feoffatis of 34 Edw. I., and is a particular kind of prohibition granted to the patron of an advow-son. Inquiry issues for the assessment of damages by the sheriff or his deputy. It represents to some extent the old writ of justieies, and the later writ of trial allowed by 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 42, but is narrower in its operation, for under the last-named writs the whole case or issues under it could be tried. Before an inquiry the liability has been already established. Levari facias is the means of levying execution for forfeited recognizances (see RECOGNIZANCE). The Bankruptcy Act, 1883, abolished it in civil proceedings. Ne exeat regno was at one time issued by virtue of the prerogative to prevent any person from leaving the realm, a form of restraint of liberty recognized by parliament in 5 Ric. II. c. 2. It has now become a means of preventing a debtor from quitting the kingdom, and so withdrawing himself from the jurisdiction of the court with out giving security for the debt. There is some doubt whether it has not been impliedly superseded by the powers given by Ord. lxix. of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Non omittas is for executing pro-cess by the sheriff in a liberty or franchise, where the proper officer has neglected to do so. It rested originally chiefly upon the Statute of Westminster the Second, c. 39, and is now regulated by the Sheriffs Act, 1887, which repeals the previous enactment. Possession (also called assistance) enjoins the sheriff to give possession of land to the party entitled thereto under a judgment for such possession. In admiralty, where the judgment is for possession of a ship, the writ is addressed to the marshal. Procedendo is the converse of prohibi-tion. It directs the lower court to proceed with the case. It also lies to restore the authority of commissioners suspended by super-sedeas. Restitution restores property, either real or personal, after the right to it has been judicially declared. Thus it lies on behalf of the owner of real property under the statutes of forcible entry and of personal property under the Larceny Act, 1861. Significavii, once a writ, appears since 57 Geo. III. c. 127 to be merely a notice. It is a part of the proceedings against a person disobeying the order of an ecclesiastical court, and consists in a notification to the crown in Chancery of the disobedience. Thereupon a writ de contumace capiendo issues for his arrest. On his subsequent obedience or satisfaction, a writ of deliverance is granted. Precedents of these writs are given in the Act named. Subpoena is the ordinary means of securing the presence of a witness in court, and is addressed to the person whose attendance is required. It is so called from its containing the words "and this you are not to omit under the penalty of £100," &c. The subpoena may be either ad testificandum, to give evidence, or duces tecum, to produce documents, &c., or both combined. By special order of a judge under 17 and 18 Vict. c. 23 a subpoena may be issued from any court in England, Scotland, or Ireland to compel the attendance of a witness out of the juris-diction. Summons is the universal means of commencing an action in the High Court. It is addressed to the defendant, and may be either generally or specially indorsed with a statement of the nature of the claim made. The latter form of indorsement is allowed in certain cases of debt or liquidated demand, and gives the plaintiff the great advantage of entitling him to final judgment in default of appearance by the defendant, and even in spite of appearance unless the defendant can satisfy a judge that he has a defence or ought to be allowed to defend. No statement of claim is necessary in case of a specially indorsed writ, the indorse-ment being deemed to be the statement. The writ may be issued out of the central office or out of a district registry, and the plaintiff may name on his writ the division of the High Court in which he proposes to have the case tried. There are special rules governing the issue of writs in probate and admiralty actions. The writ remains in force for twelve months, but maybe renewed for good cause after the expiration of that time. Service must be personal, unless where substituted service is allowed, and in special cases, such as actions to recover land and admiralty actions. Service out of the jurisdiction of a writ or notice of a writ is allowed only by leave of the court or a judge. Notice of the issue of a writ, and not the writ itself, is served on a defendant who is neither a British subject nor in British dominions. The law is contained in the Rules of the Supreme Court, especially Ord. ii.—xi. and xiv. Supersedeas com-m ands the stay of proceedings on another writ. 11 is often combined with procedendo, where on a certiorari the High Court has decideil in favour of the jurisdiction of the inferior court. It is also used for removing from the commission of the peace, and for putting an end to the authority of, any persons acting under commission from the crown. Venire facias is the first proceeding in outlawry, call-ing upon the party to appear. Under the old practice a venire facias de novo was the means of obtaining a new trial. Ventre inspiciende, appears still to be competent, and is a curious relic of antiquity. It issues on the application of an heir presumptive in order to determine by a jury of matrons whether the widow of a deceased owner of lands be with child or not. Almost exactly the same pro-ceeding was known in Roman law under the name of intcrdictum de inspiciendo ventre, the prfetor sending five women to make a report.The principal writs of a non-judicial nature relate to parliament or some of its constituent elements. Parliament is summoned by writs. the king's writ issued out of Chancery by advice of the privy coun-cil. The period of forty days once necessary between the writ and the assembling is now by 15 and 16 Vict. c. 23 reduced to thirty-five days. Writs of summons are issued to the lords spiritual and temporal before every new parliament. Those to Irish represen-tative peers are regulated by the Act of Union, those to archbishops and bishops by 10 and 11 Vict. c. 108. New peerages are no longer created by writ, but the eldest son of a peer is occasionally summoned to the House of Lords in the name of a barony of his father's. Earl Percy, the eldest son of the duke of Northumber-land, was so summoned in 1887, and sits as Baron Lovaine (see PEERAGE). With respect to election of members of the House of Commons, the procedure differs as the election takes place after a dissolution or on a casual vacancy. After a dissolution the writ is issued, as already stated, by order of the crown in council. For a single election the warrant for a new writ is issued during the session by the speaker after an order of the house made upon motion ; during the recess by the speaker's authority alone, under the powers given by 24 Geo. III. sess. 2, c. 26, 21 and 22 Vict, c. 110, and 26 Vict. c. 20. The warrant is addressed to the clerk of the crown in Chancery for Great Britain, to the clerk of the crown and hanaper of Ireland. A supersedeas to a writ has some-times been ordered where the writ was improvidently issued. The time allowed to elapse between the receipt of the writ and the elec-tion is fixed by the Ballot Act, 1872, sched. 1, at nine days for a county or a district borough, four days for any other borough. The writ is to be returned by the returning officer to the clerk of the crown with the name of the member elected endorsed on the writ. Sched. 2 gives a form of the writ, which is tested, like the writ of error, by the queen herself. The returning officer is the sheriff in counties and counties of cities (such as Chester), generally the mayor in cities and boroughs, and the vice-chancellor in univer-sities (see PARLIAMENT). Other writs for election are those for CONVOCATION (q.v.), which is by 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19 summoned by the archbishop of the province on receipt of the king's writ, and for election of coroners, verderers of royal forests, and some other officers whose office is of great antiquity. The writ de coronatore cligendo, addressed to the sheriff, is specially preserved by the Coroners Act, 1887.
Offences relating to writs are dealt with by the Criminal Law Con-solidation Acts of 1861; larceny by 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 30; forgery by 24 and 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 27. The maximum penalty is seven years' penal servitude. Scotland. Scotland.—Writ is a more extensive term than in England.
Writs are either judicial or extrajudicial, the latter including deeds and other instruments,—as, for instance, in 42 and 43 Vict, c. 44, and in the common use of the phrase "oath or writ" as a means of proof. In the narrower English sense both "writ" and '' brieve " are used. The brieve was as indispensable a part of the old procedure as it was in England, and many forms are given in Jiegiam Majestatem and Quoniam Attachiamenta. It was a com-mand issued in the king's name, addressed to a judge, and ordering trial of a question stated therein. Its conclusion was the will of the summons (see WILL, SUMMONS). In some cases proceedings which were by writ in England took another form in Scotland. Eor instance, the writ of attaint was not known in Scotland, but a similar end was reached by trial of the jury for wilful error. The English writ of ne exeat regno is represented by the meditatio ftigas warrant. Most proceedings by brieve, being addressed to the sheriff, became obsolete after the institution of the Court of Session, when the sheriffs lost much of that judicial power which they had enjoyed to a greater extent than the English sheriff (see SHERIFF). The executive functions of the English sheriff are performed by the messengers-at-arms. An English writ of execution is represented in Scotland by diligence, chiefly by means by warrants to messen-gers-at-arms under the authority of signet letters in the name of the king. The brieve, however, has not wholly disappeared. Brieves of tutor}', terce, and division are still competent, but not in use. Other kinds of brieve have been superseded by simpler procedure, e.g., the brieve of service of heirs by 10 and 11 Vict, c. 47, for which a petition to the sheriff was substituted by that Act and 31 and 32 Vict. c. 101. The brieve of cognition of insane persons is now the only one of practical importance. The old brieves of furiosity and idiotcy were abolished, and this new form was introduced by the Act last named. Writs eo nomine have been the subject of much recent legislation. The writs of capias, habeas, certiorari, and extent were replaced by other proceedings by 19 and 20 Vict. c. 56. The writ of clare constat was introduced by 21 and 22 Viet. c. 76. It and the writs of resignation and confirmation (whether granted by the crown or a subject superior) were regulated by 31 and 32 Vict. c. 101. By the same Act crown writs are to be in the English language, and registered in the regis-tor of crown writs. They need not be sealed unless at the instance of the party against whom they are issued. Writs of progress (except crown writs, writs of clare constat, and writs of acknow-ledgment) were abolished by 37 and 38 Vict. c. 94. The clare constat writ is one granted by the crown or a subject superior for the purpose of completing title of a vassal's heirs to lands held by the deceased vassal. Where the lands are leasehold the writ of acknowledgment under 20 and 21 Vict. c. 26 is used for the same purpose. By 40 and 41 Viet. c. 40 the form of warrant of execution on certain extracts of registered writs is amended. Extracts, of registered writs are to be equivalent to the registered writs them-selves. Writs registered in the register of sasines for preserva-tion only may afterwards be registered for preservation and execution. By 22 Geo. II. c. 48, passed for the purpose of assimi-lating the practice of outlawry for treason in Scotland to that in use in England, the court before which an indictment for treason or misprision of treason is found, is entitled on proper cause to issue writs of capias, proclamation, and exigent. Many writs are by the Stamp Act, 1870, chargeable with a duty of five shillings. In some respects the proceedings in parliamentary elections differ from those in use in England. Thus the writ in university elec-tions is directed to the vice-chancellors of Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively, but not to those of St Andrews and Aberdeen, and there is an extension of the time for the return in elections for Orkney and Shetland, and for the Wick burghs. Representative peers of Scotland were by the Act of Union to be elected after writ issued to the privy council of Scotland. On the abolition of the privy council a proclamation under the great seal was substituted by 6 Anne, c. 23.
United States.—Writs in United States courts are by Act of United Congress to be tested in the name of the chief justice of the United States. States. By State laws writs are generally bound to be in the name of the people of the State, in the English language, and tested in the name of a judge. AVrits of error have been the subject of much legislation by the United States and by the States. In New York writs of error and of ne exeat have been abolished. Writs as parts of real actions have been generally superseded, but in Massachu-setts a writ of entry on disseisin is still a mode of trying title. Writs of dower and of estrepement are still in use in some States. By the law of some States, e.g., New Jersey, writs of election are issued to supply casually occurring vacancies in the legislature.
Authorities.—The importance of the writ in procedure led to the compilation of a great body of law and precedent at an early date. In addition to the Registium Breviumlhave were, among other old works, the Natura Brevium, first published in 1525; Theloall, Le Digest des Briefes Originates (1579); Fitzherbert, Le Nouvel Natura Brevium (1588); OJfkina Brevium (1079). See too Coke upon Littleton, 158, 159, 2 Coke's Institutes, 39. Many precedents will also be found in the collection of Parliamentary Writs and in Stubbs's Select Charters. Old books of practice, such as Tidd's Practice, Corner's down Practice, and Booth On Real Actions, contained much law on the subject. For the history Spence's Equitable Jurisdiction, vol. i. bk. ii. ch. viii., Forsyth's Hist, of Trial by Jury, Stephen On Pleading, and Bigelow's Hist, of Procedure, ch. iv., may be consulted. There appears to be no book dealing with the writ in modern practice, but sufficient information is contained in the ordinary treatises on procedure. (J. Wf.)
National Ocean Council Releases Strategic Action Plans
Update06.09.2011On June 2, 2011, the National Ocean Council released draft outlines of Strategic Action Plans ("SAPs") aimed at addressing the nine Priority Objectives that the Council was tasked with addressing by President Obama’s June 2010 Executive Order. The draft outlines come as the next step in the Council’s effort to develop a National Ocean Policy that is consistent with the Executive Order.
Background
On June 12, 2009, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum creating an Interagency Ocean Task Force charged with developing recommendations for a National Ocean Policy and a recommended framework for effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning ("CMSP"). The Task Force conducted stakeholder meetings and briefings through Fall 2009, issued an interim report on September 10, 2009, and released an interim framework for CMSP on December 9, 2009. The Task Force’s final recommendations were released on July 19, 2010. On the same day, President Obama issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER adopting the Task Force’s recommendations and creating the National Ocean Council to help agencies implement the recommendations. In January 2011, the Council released a document outlining the legal authorities related to the implementation of CMSP and released a Notice of Intent and request for comment for the development of SAPs that addressed the Priority Objectives identified in the 2010 Executive Order.
Strategic Action Plans
The Council’s SAPs are intended to address specific actions that the government can realistically take to advance the implementation of the National Ocean Policy and will identify specific and measurable near-term, mid-term and long-term actions to meet each Priority Objective. The SAPs are broken down into two categories: 1) “how we do business” (to improve how the federal government carries out its stewardship responsibilities), and 2) “areas of special emphasis” (to address priorities that require immediate, sustained attention). They are, as defined by the Council, as follows:
How We Do Business
Ecosystem-Based Management: adopt ecosystem-based management as a foundational principle for the comprehensive management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes; Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based CMSP in the United States; Inform Decisions and Improve Understanding: increase our knowledge in order to continually inform and improve management and policy decisions, as well as our ability to respond to changes and challenges and better educate the public through formal and informal programs about the ocean, coasts and the Great Lakes; and Coordinate and Support: better coordinate and support federal, state, tribal, local and regional management of the ocean, coasts and the Great Lakes and improve coordination and integration across the federal government and, as appropriate, with the international community.Areas of Special Emphasis
Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change: strengthen the resiliency of coastal communities and marine and Great Lakes environments and their abilities to adapt to climate change impacts and ocean acidification; Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: establish and implement an integrated ecosystem protection and restoration strategy that is science-based and aligns conservation and restoration goals at the federal, state, tribal, local and regional levels; Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land: enhance water quality in the ocean, along our coasts and in the Great Lakes by promoting and implementing sustainable practices on land; Changing Conditions in the Arctic: address environmental stewardship needs in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent coastal areas in the face of climate-induced and other environmental changes; and Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes Observation, Mapping and Infrastructure: strengthen and integrate federal and nonfederal ocean observation systems, sensors, data collection platforms, data management and mapping capabilities into a national system and integrate that system into international observation efforts.
Draft Outlines
The draft outlines are the product of writing teams composed of representatives from the Council agencies and designed to provide an initial view of how federal agencies might address each of the Priority Objectives. Each outline presents bulleted potential actions to address the Priority Objectives, describes the reasons for taking the action and any expected outcomes, the milestones, the time frame for completion, and the gaps and needs in science and technology that relate to each of the actions.
In drafting the outlines, the writing teams were guided by certain parameters. Each plan has approximately six actions that are focused on federal efforts and are succinct, feasible, based on measurable and achievable outcomes, and consistent with the Obama Administration’s budgetary and management goals. According to the Council, the actions focus on eliminating procedural redundancy, encouraging efficiency, and evaluating and prioritizing ongoing and new activities. The actions deal with federal activities, rather than international or state-driven actions, and do not suggest changes to, or new, legislation.
Opportunities for Stakeholder Involvement
The draft outlines are currently available for review. The Council is seeking public comments on the outlines to help inform the development of the full plans, which will be available in draft for public review and comment later in 2011. The public comment period closes on July 2, 2011. In addition to accepting written comments, the Council has scheduled a series of listening sessions: Washington, D.C. (June 9); Barrow, Alaska (June 9); Anchorage, Alaska (June 10); Chicago, Ill. (June 13); Jacksonville, Fla. (June 15); Honolulu, Hawaii (June 16); Exeter, N.H. (June 27); Galveston, Texas (June 27); Ocean Shores, Wash. (June 27); San Francisco, Calif. (June 30); West Long Beach, N.J. (June 30); and Portland, Ore. (July 1).
Contact counsel if you need assistance in developing comments or policy statements on this initiative.
© 2011 Perkins Coie LLP
The Fugitive Slave Act
The Compromise of 1850 was introduced to stave off conflict between the slave states and the free states upon the admission of California as a state. Under the Compromise, California was admitted as a free state , New Mexico and Utah were organized as slave territories, and Texas had its boundaries set. Another part of the Compromise was the Fugitive Slave Act, which federalized the return of escaped slaves to their owners.
It is an offensive piece of legislation to us today, even if one takes the issue of race out of it. Slaves, of course, had no rights - they were guilty by virtue of a slave-owner's say-so, there was very little burden of proof, the federal government bore most of the costs of returning escaped slaves, and non-slaves who helped fugitive slaves were subject to harsh fines and prison.
Resistance to the law in the North grew a fever pitch, with President Fillmore calling out the army to quell some mobs and to return some former slaves caught in the North.
As defiance of the law in the North became more and more open and more and more fervent, the anger of the South grew and grew, adding to a general feeling of discontent.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States, and Who, in consequence of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offense against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by the virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled "An Act to establish the judicial courts of the United States" shall be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
§ 2. And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court of each organized Territory of the United States shall have the same power to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
§ 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall from time to time enlarge the number of the commissioners, with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor, and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.
§ 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in their respective circuits and districts within the several States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and vacation; shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled.
§ 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive such warrant, or other process, when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion of such claimant, by the Circuit or District Court for the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive, by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time in his custody under the provisions of this act, should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to ensure a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, any where in the State within which they are issued.
§ 6. And be it further enacted, That when a person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer authorized to administer an oath and take depositions under the laws of the State or Territory from which such person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.
§ 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed.
§ 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their deputies, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as may be allowed for similar services in other cases; and where such services are rendered exclusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in whole by such claimant, his or her agent or attorney; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his agent or attorney; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioner for the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars each for each person he or they may arrest, and take before any commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determination of such commissioners; and, in general, for performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to such claimant by the final determination of such commissioner or not.
§ 9. And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will he rescued by force from his or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States .
§ 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party. Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the matters so proved, and also a general description of the person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be; and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other office, authorized by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up to the claimant, And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants or fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such person to the State or Territory from which he escaped: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record as evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law.
Approved, September 18, 1850.
UC Berkeley scientists to work with DOE labs to produce more nuclear security experts
By Robert Sanders , Media Relations | June 10, 2011
Edward Watkins, director of the Office of Proliferation Detection in DOE's National Nuclear Security Agency. (Jean Smith)
As guardian of the world's largest nuclear arsenal and signatory to international nonproliferation treaties, the United States needs people versed in nuclear science to maintain and safeguard its weapons and monitor the compliance of other nations.
That need was emphasized by officials of the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), who came to campus today (Friday, June 10) to congratulate UC Berkeley on winning a $25 million, five-year contract to help supply the government with experts in nuclear security.
“There has been a big uptick in the number of bachelor's and master's degree students graduating in nuclear science in this country, but our concern is that our national laboratories are not interacting with the universities” that are producing those graduates, said David LaGraffe, deputy director of NNSA's Office of Proliferation Detection, which will oversee the grant. “We're working to expand those opportunities.”
“This program is about people; linking the labs and the universities,” said Edward Watkins, director of the Office of Proliferation Detection. “We're committed to this.”
The officials spoke today in Soda Hall at a day-long symposium to kick off the consortium. The event followed an announcement of the grant by the NNSA yesterday in Washington , D.C. , at the University of California Washington Center.
LaGraffe said that UC Berkeley's proposal for a National Science and Security Consortium to create a pipeline between universities - including many Historically Black Colleges and Universities - and national laboratories was the most balanced of those submitted.
“We chose UC Berkeley because of the quality of the research and because its PIs (principal investigators) are tops in the world,” he said. “But UC Berkeley also has a very good and successful pipeline in operation,” in part because of its existing interactions with four national DOE labs.
Jasmina Vujic, UC Berkeley professor of nuclear engineering and director of the consortium, noted that the consortium's main goal will be to “attract the best and brightest students to focus on nuclear science and security.”
“We're after human capital,” LaGraffe added. “Hopefully, this program results in more students pursuing a career in national security.”
New congressional map would move Herger out of Yuba-Sutter
June 10, 2011 10:21:00 AM
By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat
A draft map for new congressional boundaries shows Yuba and Sutter counties in a district stretching into the north Bay Area and wine country, and not including the home of current U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Chico.
Under the preliminary new maps released today by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission , Democrat Mike Thompson, of St. Helena , would represent the region if he runs again and is re-elected next year.
If Republicans seethe at such a prospect, they also might find little to like in the proposed new Assembly district map, which would include both Yuba and Sutter counties in one district, but also potentially set up incumbent Assemblymen Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, and Dan Logue, R-Linda, to run against each other in the primary.
The district for state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, continues to include both counties under the draft maps.
Districts are not numbered in the draft maps, with all three for the Yuba-Sutter area simply labeled "Yuba."
Though they'd represent a notable change from current district boundaries, the maps released today aren't necessarily what voters will see next year.
The commission will continue to take public comments and have a series of meetings around the state for feedback on the new maps. Final maps, in effect for the 2012 elections, are set to be decided by the commission in August.
State ballot initiatives approved in 2008 and 2010 created the commission to draw new Assembly, state Senate, Board of Equalization and Congressional maps, based on 2010 U.S. Census data.
When those maps were last revised in 2001, state legislators did the redistricting, leading to charges of incumbency protection and a lack of transparency.
Water quality suffers as Congress dithers
Record-Searchlight
The Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) was born when PacifiCorp — faced with the reality of its aging dams and slim hopes of receiving necessary Clean Water Act approvals permits — helped craft a deal to send the dams and their ...
See all stories on this topic »
California rushing to an end for gold mining? Legislation would extend ban on suction dredging through 2016
Matt Drange/The Times-Standard
Posted: 06/11/2011 02:30:21 AM PDT
Updated: 06/11/2011 02:30:22 AM PDT
SACRAMENTO -- Budget cuts are rarely hailed by environmentalists as having positive effects on watershed habitats, but a recent proposal to slash funding to the California Department of Fish and Game is being met with optimism by groups looking to put a stop to the gold mining technique known as suction dredging.
Opponents of the modern day gold prospecting practice amended the budget last month by adding language that prohibits Fish and Game from spending money to issue any new dredging permits, a move that will save the state an estimated $1.8 million. Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, pushed forward the bill, which he defended by saying, “We've just got a lot more important things to find funding for.”
With the deadline to present a balanced budget to the governor looming, California Controller John Chiang issued a statement last week reaffirming that he will permanently withhold legislators' salary and per diem payments starting June 16, something voters approved in November to encourage lawmakers to sift through funding decisions for programs across the board.
Environmental groups say suction dredging -- which involves using handheld devices similar to vacuums that suck up sediment from the river bottom and deposit the material into sluice boxes above -- is damaging to fisheries that are already on the decline. Craig Tucker, a spokesman for the Karuk Indian Tribe in Northern California , said it's been “downhill” for the tribe
since the first gold rush more than 150 years ago.
Some fish species like the lamprey live in riverbed sediment for up seven years during their larval stage, Tucker said, and are especially vulnerable to suction dredging.
”It's deadly to those species,” Tucker said, adding that with dams, irrigation systems and potentially harmful timber harvesting practices still dotting the landscape around many of the tribal region's rivers and streams, suction dredging would be one issue the group could cross off the list if the proposed legislation goes through.
But many in the gold mining community feel the decision to cut funding for the prospecting technique is being rushed and that by extending the ban on suction dredging lawmakers are putting an indefinite hold on gold mining's future. In 2009, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger implemented a two-year moratorium on suction dredging, which, under current proposed legislation would run through 2016.
Rachel Dunn, co-owner of the mining supply shop Gold Pan California , said the language of the extension “circumvents due process” by failing to consider public comment on the issue and assuring that new regulations are passed before Fish and game completes its Environmental Impact Report in November.
To date, Fish and Game has spent $1.2 million of the $1.5 million allocated by the state to complete the EIR, which remains in the draft stage.
”This kills the industry with zero debate. It's heinous,” said Dunn, one of many who voiced their displeasure last month at a series of public comment hearings on the issue. As an alternative to eliminating the practice, Dunn said, others at the hearings proposed raising permitting fees to offset inspection and administrative costs.
In addition to damaging effects on fisheries, environmental groups say another byproduct of the dredging is the reintegration of elemental mercury left behind by the first gold miners some 150 years ago. Once in the water column, the particles can become methyl mercury, which studies have shown causes brain damage to humans.
Dunn disputed the issue, saying that suction dredging actually removes “98 percent” of the mercury particles in the water when the material is separated out in the sluice box, adding that many of the areas where high levels of mercury are reported were first discovered by miners.
”It's really stunning that this is happening this way,” she said. “Every citizen has mining rights, but with this, the entire state gets slapped.”
Gold prices dropped a bit from near-record highs to $1,529 per ounce on Friday, but a clear incentive remains for the recipients of the roughly 3,650 resident and non-resident dredging permits issued annually over the last 15 years. The benefits from keeping gold prospecting alive extend to other areas of the economy, Dunn said, including tourism dollars that flow into rural communities in the form of supplies and lodging expenses.
Regardless of the risks associated with mercury exposure, Tucker said that it is nearly impossible to dredge in such a way that does not adversely affect the various fish species that inhabit the region collectively referred to as the “Mother Lode” -- an area in Central California including the Feather, Yuba, Klamath, American and Kern rivers, among others, which serve as hot spots for mining activity. The current draft version of the EIR calls for stricter regulations of suction dredging, which previous Fish and Game requirements limited to summer months and those areas deemed safe for fisheries.
”Different fish spawn at different times. You've got rivers like the ( Klamath River ) that are still ecologically sophisticated,” Tucker said, adding that he was optimistic the proposed legislation would make it through. “The regulations in the past were not protective of fish. There are other ways of recovering gold, and they need to find them.”
Mark Stopher, a Fish and Game environmental program manager who spent the last two years working on suction dredging issues out of Redding , said that the $1.8 million in annual savings was a rough estimate put out by the department in 2009. Included in it are the selling and databasing of individual permits and the cost of sending fisheries biologists to collect information at various sites, as well as the wardens who must devote a portion of their time to enforcing the regulations.
Revenue generated by permit sales amounted to about $200,000 annually prior to the 2009 moratorium, Stopher said, a far cry from the $2 million it costs to run the program. None of the projected savings would be the result of Fish and Game positions being eliminated, Stopher said, something he attributed to the lack of staff devoted solely to suction dredging. With as many as 364 positions just a few years ago, Fish and Game currently operates with about 300, leaving “plenty” of work to go around, he said.
Without additional recommendations from the state, Stopher conceded, the likelihood that new regulations or an altered fee structure will be put into place before 2016 is slim to none, meaning a potential end to a practice Californians have participated in since the days of the first gold rush when hundreds of thousands of people first flocked to the region's rich hillsides and streams.
”We're doing exactly what they told us to do, but the (trailer bill) language effectively terminates that,” Stopher said. “We essentially strand all the money we spent, and would have to start the process over. Whether or not that's the right thing to do is a policy decision.”
Matt Drange produced this story for the Times-Standard and California Watch, part of the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Late word out yesterday that the crackdown of the gold and silver manipulators has begun. Kitco, one of the partners in Gold and Silver Manipulation Scam, is being taken out by the authorities. It your fault if you have any metal in their paper games...
Revenu Quebec Investigates Gold Fraud
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/06/10/revenue-quebec-investigates-massive-gold-fraud/
There will be a lot more of this as the veil comes off the metal market rigging operations. Kitco was running a gold and silver ponzi scheme that was started by none other than the infamous Jon Nadler.
Nadler was the inventor and promoter of the Pooled Metal Investment accounts. He started this at Bank of America then implemented it at the Perth Mint, Kitco and the Royal Bank of Canada . The idea was that since everyone doesn't cash in their gold and silver certificates at the same time you could sell allocated and unallocated pooled account certificates without buying the actual metal. You then take that money and invest it in some other interest baring account and you get the interest gains.
Like any ponzi scheme it only works when people don't try to withdraw their investment. Once they try to cash in certificates for real metal the game is over.
This is where we are today...BUT WATCH WHAT HAPPENS NOW!
There are many forms of paper metal ponzi schemes including ETF's, certificate programs, pooled accounts and even the COMEX and LME exchanges which are leveraged 100-1 paper metal vs the deliverable ounces.
THE CON WILL FAIL FAST AND TAKE THE ENTIRE GLOBAL MONETARY SYSTEM WITH IT!
If you've been on the Road to Roota for long enough you KNOW that the ONLY way to survive this global meltdown is by holding PHYSICAL GOLD AND SILVER IN YOUR OWN POSSESSION!
The time for explaining the reasoning behind this is over. If you still don't get it you should read the Road to Roota ARCHIVES here:
http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/department36.cfm
The breakdown of the paper metal infrastructure has begun. With it will come the moonshot for physical metal, the destruction of paper metal to zero, the nationalization of mines and warehouse metal and ultimately the end of un-backed fiat money.
It was always the plan.
Best of luck to us ALL!
Bix Weir
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development met last week to deliberate and amend the FY 12 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers and other water development agencies. One provision accepted would completely disallow funding for completion of the CWA guidance or a rulemaking.
SPRINGFIELD , Ill. — The state of Illinois has taken possession of 1,900 acres in southeast Illinois and will add 400 more over the next few months as part of a settlement with operators of a former refinery.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources said Friday it will begin work to restore and preserve the land near the former Indian Refinery and a wildlife habitat near the Embarras (em-BRAW') River. The refinery near Lawrenceville was owned by Texaco Inc. and is a federal Superfund cleanup site. Lawrenceville is about 150 miles southeast of Springfield near the Indiana state line.
The state of Illinois and Texaco reached an agreement earlier this year over contamination of wetlands at the site near the river. Texaco agreed to turn over the land and pay $1.7 million.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/0ac81e9408be42beaaa5332235cca53b/IL--Refinery-Site-Land/
Democratic Senator: Environmental Protection Agency Out of Control
Friday, June 10, 2011
By Susan Jones(CNSNews.com) - Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the former governor of coal-producing West Virginia, is blasting the Obama administration for using the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal-fueled power plants out of business.
On Thursday, American Electric Power company announced that to comply with a series of EPA regulations, it will close five coal-fired plants -- three in West Virginia and one each in Ohio and Virginia -- at a net cost of 600 jobs.
American Electric Power is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States , delivering electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states.
"We have worked for months to develop a compliance plan that will mitigate the impact of these rules for our customers and preserve jobs, but because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coal-fueled power plants," said AEP Chairman and CEO Michael G. Morris.
"The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,” he added.
The plant closures in West Virginia alone will result in 242 lost jobs -- "and that's simply wrong," Manchin said:
“Let me be clear, it's decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy.
“It is because of out-of-control agencies like the EPA as well as the need to protect American jobs that I sponsored the REINS Act -- a commonsense measure that will help protect and create jobs by reining in needless or burdensome regulations, and that will put responsibility back where it belongs – in the hands of the people who are elected to govern and lead this great nation,” Manchin concluded.
During his campaign for president, Barack Obama admitted that "if somebody wants to build a coal fired plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
The cost of AEP's compliance plan could range from $6-$8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade, the company said. That's in addition to the $7.2 billion that AEP has invested since 1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fired plants.
The company noted that annual emissions of nitrogen oxides from AEP plants are 80 percent lower today than they were in 1990, and sulfur dioxide emissions are 73 percent lower than they were in 1990.
“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA's current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies, AEP said.
The company said while some jobs will be created from the installation of emissions-reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of around 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of complying with the proposed EPA rules.
“We will continue to work through the EPA process with the hope that the agency will recognize the cumulative impact of the proposed rules and develop a more reasonable compliance schedule. We also will continue talking with lawmakers in Washington about a legislative approach that would achieve the same long-term environmental goals with less negative impact on jobs and the U.S. economy,” Morris said.
“With more time and flexibility, we will get to the same level of emission reductions, but it will cost our customers less and will prevent premature job losses, extend the construction job benefits, and ensure the ongoing reliability of the electric system.”
AEP said the following plants will be closed by the end of 2014:
-- Glen Lyn Plant, Glen Lyn, Va.
-- Kammer Plant, Moundsville, W.Va.
-- Kanawha River Plant, Glasgow, W.Va.
-- Phillip Sporn Plant, New Haven, W.Va.
-- Picway Plant, Lockbourne, OhioIn addition, AEP plans to scale back power generation at six plants.
News Release
Release No. 0245.11
Contact:
USDA Office of Communications (202) 720-4623
Printable version
Email this page USDA Farm Service Agency Acting Administrator Tours Flood Damage in MontanaWASHINGTON , June 10, 2011 — Acting Farm Service Agency Administrator Bruce Nelson will travel to Montana today to tour areas of the state devastated by flooding.
"Severe weather this spring is making things extremely difficult for many farmers and ranchers," said Nelson. "We want producers affected by the flooding to know that we are here for them and we have several programs in place that could help them during this recovery period."
Nelson, who is a resident of Montana , is scheduled to tour the Huntley Project irrigation canal that was damaged when Pryor Creek flooded, taking away more than 100 feet of the district's canal system. The Huntley Project irrigates more than 20,000 acres of land that grows six crops, including sugar beets, malt barley, spring wheat, corn, hay and grass.
Other stops include a senior center in Billings , a meeting at the Council on Aging and a visit through the city of Roundup , an agricultural community that was hit by flooding twice in two weeks. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Montana State Conservationist Joyce Swartzendruber will also be in attendance.
"It's one thing to hear about disasters on the news, but when you see firsthand the damage it has caused and the lives it is affecting, it makes you appreciate being in a position where you can help people and make a difference," said Nelson.
USDA administers several programs to assist disaster-stricken areas. In the wake of several disasters that have affected Montanans and others, USDA and the entire federal family have been working with state and local officials to provide relief to residents, farmers, ranchers, businesses and those who need it most.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced this week that $3 million has been allocated to the Emergency Watershed Protect Program administered by NRCS to carry out emergency restoration projects in five western states experiencing flooding or at risk for flooding.
The Farm Service Agency administers several important programs that help producers recover from disaster damage and livestock deaths. Among the key programs available to address impacts from disasters are the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP), the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program.
Fact sheets for all FSA programs can be found at www.fsa.usda.gov ; click on Newsroom, then Fact Sheets.
#
To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
News Release
Release No. 0242.11
Contact:
USDA Office of Communications (202)720-4623
Printable version
Email this page USDA Official Meets with Hispanic and Women Farmers to Discuss Process for Resolving Discrimination Claims in CaliforniaSTOCKTON, Calif., June 9, 2011 – As part of continued efforts to close the chapter on allegations of past discrimination at USDA, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Fred Pfaeffle held a series of outreach meetings this week with farmers and ranchers to talk about the process that has been put in place to resolve the claims of Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers who assert that they were discriminated against when seeking USDA farm loans.
"The Obama Administration is committed to resolving all claims of past discrimination at USDA, so we can close this sad chapter in the department's history," said Pfaeffle. "We want to make sure that any Hispanic or women farmer or rancher who alleges discrimination is aware of this option to come forward, to have his or her claims heard and to participate in a process to receive compensation."
The program USDA announced earlier this year with the Department of Justice provides up to $50,000 for each Hispanic or woman farmer who can show that USDA denied them a loan or loan servicing for discriminatory reasons for certain time periods between 1981 and 2000. This claims process offers a streamlined alternative to litigation and provides at least $1.33 billion in compensation, plus up to $160 million in farm debt relief to eligible Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers. Hispanic or women farmers who provide additional proof and meet other requirements can receive a $50,000 reward. Successful claimants are also eligible for funds to pay the taxes on their awards and for forgiveness of certain existing USDA loans. There are no filing fees or other costs to claimants to participate in the program. Participation is voluntary, and individuals who decide not to participate may choose to file a complaint in court. However, USDA cannot provide legal advice to potential claimants, and persons seeking legal advice may contact a lawyer or other legal services provider.
Today's event is part of a series of outreach meetings that are being held across the country to let Hispanic and women farmers or ranchers know about this process. Yesterday there was a meeting in Fresno and on June 7 there was an outreach meeting in Indio . Potential claimants in California , who were unable to attend this week's events, can register to receive a claims package by calling the Farmer and Rancher Call Center at 1-888-508-4429 or visiting www.farmerclaims.gov .
Under the leadership of Secretary Vilsack, USDA is addressing civil rights complaints that go back decades and through these outreach meetings, we are taking steps towards achieving that goal. USDA is committed to resolving allegations of past discrimination and ushering in "a new era of civil rights" for the Department. In February 2010, the Secretary announced the Pigford II settlement with African American farmers, and in October 2010, he announced the Keepseagle settlement with Native American farmers.
Audio and video public service announcements in English and Spanish from Secretary Vilsack and downloadable print and web banner ads on the Hispanic and women farmer claims process are available at: http://www.usda.gov/PSAs_Print_and_WebBanner_Ads.xml .
#
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW , Washington , DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272(voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
Release No. 0240.11
Contact:
Office of Communications (202)720-4623
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Continued Funding For Collaborative Forest Restoration Projects Projects in nine states restore forested landscapes across boundariesWASHINGTON , June 9, 2011 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced nearly $22 million in funding for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects that promote healthier, safer and more productive public lands through partnership efforts which will reduce wildfire risk, enhance fish and wildlife habitats, and maintain and improve water quality across all lands.
"The best way to improve the health of our nation's forests is to work across boundaries with an all-lands approach," said Vilsack. "We're pleased to support projects that are actively encouraging the restoration of our priority forest landscapes while creating green jobs and economic opportunity in rural communities."
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects accomplish a variety of U.S. Forest Service priorities including watershed restoration while supporting sustainable and fire-adapted communities through partnerships at the state, local and private level. The President's 2012 budget includes funding for these projects as part of the broader Integrated Resource Restoration approach to restoring the nation's forests and grasslands.
"Working together is how we do business," said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. "We will continue to encourage greater public involvement to maintain and restore healthy landscapes. We not only are taking care of the ecosystem, but also supporting healthy, thriving communities through collaborative forest restoration."
The 10-year restoration projects were selected and began to receive funding in 2010. Projects are located in nine states:
Four Forest Restoration Initiative : Arizona – $3.5 million
This initiative, located on the Apache-Sitgraeves, Kaibab, Coconino and Tonto National Forests , focuses on the restoration of the southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystem and will treat up to 50,000 acres per year. The project will engage new industry to insure that nearly all of the cost of removal of the thinning byproducts is covered by the value of the products.
The Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project : California – $415,500
The Dinkey Project includes 130,000 acres on the Sierra National Forest and 20,000 acres of private land. Targeted ecosystems include coniferous forest, foothill hardwood and chaparral vegetation, meadows and riparian forests. The project aims to create resilient ecosystems and enhance the ability to adapt to wildfire
Colorado Front Range Restoration Initiative : Colorado –$3.5 million
The Colorado Front Range Landscape Restoration Initiative, located in the Arapaho, Roosevelt, Pike and San Isabel National Forests , seeks to increase resilience to insects and lower wildfire risk in a ponderosa pine forest ecosystem. These more resilient forests will also have increased capacity to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.
Uncompahgre Plateau Restoration Initiative : Colorado – $930,500
The Uncompahgre Plateau includes restoration of several plant types on 160,000 treatment acres and includes key watersheds that feed the Colorado River . Multiple techniques to control the spread of invasive noxious weeds will be used, including chemical and biological control measures critical to restoration and preventive measures to control invasive species.
The Accelerating Longleaf Pine Restoration Project : Florida –$1.3 million
This project in Northeast Florida is comprised of over 230,000 acres in the Osceola National Forest . The project seeks to restore forest ecosystems that have been significantly altered by fire exclusion and hydrologic alteration.
The Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater Project : Idaho – $3.5 million
The Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater Project is a joint effort between the Clearwater Basin Collaborative and the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests . The restoration project protects communities from wildfire and restores land and water ecosystems.
Southwestern Crown of the Continent Restoration Initiative : Montana – $3.5 million
The Southwestern Crown covers 1,449,670 acres, 70 percent of which is public land including the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Restoration will focus on stream and forest habitats using prescribed fire and natural ignitions as tools to restore species composition and structure.
Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Initiative : New Mexico – $2.4 million
The Southwest Jemez Mountains area is 210,000 acres, 93 percent of which is divided between the Santa Fe National Forest and the Valles Caldera Trust-Valles National Preserve. The project will improve the resilience of ecosystems to recover from wildfires and other natural disturbance and sustain healthy forests and watersheds.
The Deschutes Skyline Restoration Project : Oregon – $720,500
This project is located on 97,000 acres in the Deschutes National Forest . The majority of the landscape is ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forest types. The goal of the project is to restore forest ecosystems and help to achieve a variety of community goals such as job creation.
The Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative : Washington – $2.2 million
The Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative aims to enhance the resilience and sustainability of forests by treating over 168,000 acres over ten years. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest restoration strategy uses treatment methods including pre-commercial and commercial thinning including biomass removal, prescribed fire of natural and activity fuels, and trail management activities.
The U.S. Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land and is the world's largest forestry research organization.
Release No. 0236.11
Contact:
Office of Communications 202-720-4623
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Announces Opportunity for Midwest Small Business Owners to Learn How to Partner with Federal Departments Event in Kansas is Co-Hosted by the Department of Commerce and Supports the White House Initiative on Small Business ContractingWASHINGTON, June 8, 2011-- Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today announced that Midwest small business owners will have an opportunity at a day-long conference later this month to learn how to grow and support their businesses by partnering with USDA, the Department of Commerce (DOC) and other Federal agencies. The meeting, in Kansas , supports the White House Initiative on Small Business Contracting.
Conference attendees will have an opportunity to participate in a full day of workshops and panel discussions led by program and small business procurement officials. Topics include acquisition needs and opportunities, procurement methods, subcontracting opportunities, business development resources, and more. As part of a continuing effort to increase small business contracting participation by enhancing the competitive posture of small businesses and small farmer-owned cooperatives, there will also be a workshop dedicated to contracting opportunities in rural America . Additionally, there will be an opportunity to meet one-on-one with USDA and DOC small business contracting specialists during a half-day "matchmaking" event.
The conference, hosted by the Department of Agriculture in partnership with the Department of Commerce will be held Tuesday, June 28, 2011, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Overland Park Hotel, 6100 College Boulevard , Overland Park , KS 66211 .
There is no conference fee. Pre-registration is preferred with onsite registration available. To register: fax your name, company name, full address, telephone number and email address to (202) 720-3001, or email to Janet.Baylor@dm.usda.gov by June 24, 2011. For further information please call 202-720-7117 or visit www.usda.gov/osdbu .
Release No. 0234.11
Contact:
Dane Henshall (202) 260-0996
USDA Seeks Applications for Grants to Help Rural Cooperatives and Businesses Create JobsWASHINGTON , June 7, 2011 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced that USDA is accepting applications for grants to help rural businesses create jobs through cooperative development centers.
"Cooperative development centers are business and job incubators. They support President Obama's goal to bring increased economic opportunities to rural communities by assisting new businesses as they create sustainable jobs," Vilsack said. "The Obama Administration is helping create economic opportunities for rural Americans, and these centers further that effort."
For example, in Great Falls , Mont. , the Montana Cooperative Development Center has helped 123 entities and guided the formation of 37 cooperatives since its inception in 1999. The story of one of these cooperatives, the Last Chance Café, was profiled in a USDA blog in October 2010 during National Cooperative Month. The café located in Sunburst, Mt., near the Canadian border, would have closed without help from the development center which was the recipient of a USDA Rural Development Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG). This iconic café is once again a successful local diner and a gathering spot for the local community.
Under the RCDG program, grants of up to $225,000 may be awarded to colleges, universities and non-profit groups to create and operate centers that help individuals or groups establish, expand or operate rural businesses, especially cooperatives. Grants may be used to conduct feasibility studies, create and implement business plans, and help businesses develop new markets for their products and services.
Through this notice, USDA may award up to $7.4 million in grants. Funds may finance up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and operating the cooperative centers. Recipients must match 25 percent of the total project cost. Applications are due July 22, 2011. For more information, see page 32943 of the June 7 Federal Register, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-07/pdf/2011-13927.pdf .
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. 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 America . Rural Development has an existing portfolio of more than $150 billion in loans and loan guarantees. Visit http://www.rurdev.usda.gov for additional information about the agency's programs or to locate the USDA Rural Development office nearest you.
#
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. , Washington , D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272(voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
News Release
Release No. 0230.11
Contact:
USDA Office of Communications (202) 720-4623
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and Partners Urge Action to Feed More Hungry Children This Summer USDA Kicks-off First-Ever National Summer Food Service Program Awareness WeekWASHINGTON , June 6, 2011 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today kicked-off the first-ever National Summer Food Service Program Week: " Food That's In When School Is Out ," a week-long awareness campaign to promote USDA's Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and other initiatives across the country to feed low-income children during summer when school is out. The SFSP, a federally funded program designed to alleviate hunger during the summer, operates through partnerships between USDA, state agencies and local organizations.
"When it comes to our children, we must do everything possible to provide them the nutrition needed to be healthy, active and ready to win the future," said Vilsack. "But we also recognize that government cannot address this challenge alone, which is why this week we join our valued partners to raise awareness about the nutrition gap low-income children face when school is out of session. Working together, government, non-profit and faith-based organizations, as well as the public, can make sure children have access to nutritious food year round."
Today, at least 17 million children in the United States face a higher risk for hunger during the summer. Although more than 20 million children nationwide receive free and reduced-priced meals through the National School Lunch Program during the regular school year, little more than 3 million kids are fed in summer meal programs.
This week, USDA and its partners will redouble efforts to highlight the important nutrition benefits provided by the SFSP and other healthy meal options available for low-income children across the country. This summer:
- Let's Move! Faith and Communities (part of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative) will work with partners to host new feeding sites at congregations and neighborhood organizations;
- the Corporation for National and Community Service's 515 AmeriCorps VISTA Summer Associates will work at anti-hunger organizations across the country to feed more children in programs, including the SFSP;
- sponsors will benefit from new waivers to simplify existing regulations in the SFSP to streamline ways to feed low-income children when school is out;
- several states will test innovative enhancements to the SFSP, including the provision of food backpacks to provide assistance over weekends, and meal delivery to reach children in rural areas.
"Each summer, millions of families struggle to provide their children with nutritious meals when schools close," said Kevin Concannon, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. "SFSP fills this gap by marshalling resources to curb food insecurity and end hunger for our nation's children.
To find a summer feeding site in your community, call the National Hunger Hotline at 1-866-3-Hungry or 1-877-8-Hambre." To find more ways you can help, search for volunteer opportunities at www.serve.gov/endhunger .
Improving child nutrition is the focal point of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act signed into law by President Obama in December 2010. The legislation reauthorized the Summer Food Service Program and USDA's other child nutrition programs. The Act allows USDA, for the first time in over 30 years, the chance to make real reforms to school meals and increase access to these critical programs. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is also the legislative centerpiece of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative to end childhood obesity in a generation.
USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees the administration of 15 nutrition assistance programs, including the Summer Food Service Program and other child nutrition programs, that touch the lives of one in four Americans over the course of a year. These programs work in concert to form a national safety net against hunger. Visit www.fns.usda.gov for information about FNS and nutrition assistance programs and go to http://www.fns.usda.gov/ech/ to see how you can help end childhood hunger.
#
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., SW , Washington , DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
Release No. 0229.11
Contact:
Office of Communications (202)720-4623
USDA Releases Plan to Promote Agroforestry as Means to Improve the Environment, Make Better Use Of Land and Help Landowners Find Other Sources Of RevenueWASHINGTON, June 6, 2011 – USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today unveiled a plan that will help farmers, ranchers and woodland owners enhance productivity, profitability and environmental stewardship by using the practice of agroforestry. Agroforestry intentionally combines agriculture and forestry to create integrated and sustainable land-use systems that take advantage of the interactive benefits from combining trees and shrubs with crops and/or livestock.
Merrigan unveiled the USDA Agroforestry Strategic Framework during the North American Agroforestry Conference, in Athens , Ga. The framework is the USDA guide to advance agroforestry knowledge, practices and assistance that lays the roadmap to influence the long-term health and sustainability of all lands for future generations.
"Agroforestry does not sacrifice farmland for forests or forests for farmland," Merrigan said. "Rather, agroforestry is the marriage of disciplines that, in the end, will protect our natural resources, benefit our communities and allow for the development of other sources of income for farmers, ranchers and woodland owners. Agroforestry can enhance values for any landowner."
Agroforestry practices may appear like a living patchwork quilt across entire watersheds. For instance, managed forest canopies in a woodland area can protect a range of crops grown for food, landscaping, and medicinal use — plants such as shiitake mushrooms, ramps, ginseng, goldenseal, curly willow and Galax. Likewise, farmers and ranchers who plant pine trees on land used for livestock and forage production can add to their profits by selling pine straw and high-value saw logs.
"The foundation of agroforestry is putting trees to work in conservation and production systems. Agroforestry begins with placing the right plant, in the right place, for the right purpose," said Andy Mason of the U.S. Forest Service and leader of the Interagency Agroforestry Team that developed the framework with input from diverse stakeholders. "This framework will help USDA focus its efforts on developing the highest priority science and tools while expanding its educational, training, and partnership activities so that America 's farmers, ranchers and woodland owners have the greatest opportunity to consider agroforestry for their operation."
The Agroforestry Strategic Framework is built around three simple goals: adoption – increase the use of agroforestry by landowners and communities; science – advance the understanding of and tools for applying agroforestry; and integration – incorporate agroforestry into an all-lands approach to conservation and economic development.
Agroforestry provides benefits beyond rural areas. In rural-urban interface areas agroforestry practices can improve wildlife habitat, mitigate the movement of odors and dust, serve as noise barriers and act as filters that help keep water clean, and do "double duty" as green spaces where food and other products can be grown, while also providing a more pleasing place to work and live.
The Interagency Agroforestry Team includes representatives from five USDA agencies ( U.S. Forest Service , Natural Resources Conservation Service ; Agricultural Research Service ; National Institute of Food and Agriculture ; and Farm Service Agency ) and two key partners ( National Association of State Foresters and National Association of Conservation Districts ). Those agencies, partners and others work with the USDA National Agroforestry Center , which conducts research, develops tools and coordinates training for natural resource professionals.
Release No. 0228.11
Contact:
Forest Service Press Office (202)205-1134
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Introduces a Framework and Map to Improve the Health of America's Watersheds Watersheds on national forests and grasslands are the source of 20 percent of the nation's drinking water supplyWASHINGTON, June 3, 2011-- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced the release of a new map that characterizes the health and condition of National Forest System lands in more than 15,000 watersheds across the country. The U.S. Forest Service's Watershed Condition Classification Map is the first step in the agency's Watershed Condition Framework , and is the agency's first national assessment across all 193 million acres of National Forest lands. Vilsack made the announcement at a USDA event in Washington highlighting the United Nation's International Year of Forests.
"Clean, healthy forests are vital to our efforts to protect America 's fresh water supply," said Vilsack. "Our nation's economic health, and the health of our citizens, depends on abundant, clean and reliable sources of freshwater. The Watershed Condition Framework and map will help provide economic and environmental benefits to residents of rural communities."
The map establishes a baseline that will be used to establish priorities for watershed restoration and maintenance. The national Watershed Condition Framework establishes a consistent, comparable, and credible process for characterizing, prioritizing, improving, and tracking the health of watersheds on national forests and grasslands. The Framework also builds added accountability and transparency into the Integrated Resource Restoration program which is included in President Obama's budget proposal for the next fiscal year.
The Framework uses three watershed condition classifications:
- Class 1 watersheds are considered healthy.
- Class 2 watersheds are relatively healthy, but may require restoration work.
- Class 3 watersheds are those that are impaired, degraded or damaged.
Additional benefits to the Framework are the opportunities it provides to current and future partners in watershed restoration and maintenance. It also increases the public's awareness of their local watershed conditions and the role they can play in improving them. The Forest Service expects that as the map gains more widespread use, it will promote the department's "all-lands" approach to managing the nation's forest and landscapes.
"Watershed restoration is not new to the Forest Service, but we now have new capabilities to assess and prioritize where resources are most needed," said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. "For the first time, we are laying out a process to allow data from local assessments to be collected, analyzed and evaluated to better understand existing conditions and the specific needs for restoration and maintenance at the national level."
The Forest Service, as custodian of national forests and grasslands—which contain nearly 400,000 miles of streams, 3 million acres of lakes, and many aquifer systems—provides drinking water for more U.S. residents than any other entity. The Forest Service manages habitat for more than 550 rare, threatened, and endangered aquatic species and provides water-related recreation to more than 130 million visitors each year. U.S. lakes and streams provide drinking water for one in five Americans.
The Framework integrates well with both the proposed Land Management Planning Rule and the agency's Climate Change Scorecard. All three efforts require working with the public and partners to assess, monitor, maintain and restore the health of forests and watersheds. The Framework assists by providing key data that will help to prioritize resources.
The Forest Service expects to have national and regional Watershed Condition Classification maps posted electronically on an agency Web site early next week, with an interactive mapping tool available by the end of the month, according to agency officials.
The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world.
Release No. 0224.11
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Kicks Off June Homeownership Month USDA Events across the Country Highlight Housing's Role in Rural Job Creation and Economic ActivityWASHINGTON , June 1, 2011 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today kicked off National Homeownership Month and highlighted the important role housing plays in creating jobs, maintaining viable rural communities and contributing to the economy. Since the start of the current fiscal year, which began last October 1, USDA Rural Development has financed approximately 80,000 home loans for rural residents.
"Housing drives rural economies and supports healthy rural communities," Vilsack said. "About 50 million Americans call rural areas home, and safe, sanitary housing is a basic human need in rural America . USDA Rural Development's housing programs do more than provide a place for families to live. They stimulate economic activity through single-family home construction, rental assistance for those who need it, and funding for eligible very-low-income homeowners to enable them to keep their dwellings in good repair."
Release No. 0219.11
Contact:
USDA Office of Communications (202) 720-4623
USDA Highlights the Launch of Let's Move! in Indian CountryWASHINGTON, May 25, 2011 — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today applauded The Office of the First Lady's Let's Move! initiative and the launch of Let's Move! in Indian Country (LMIC). LMIC is an effort designed to support and advance the work that tribal leaders and community members are already doing to improve the health of American Indian and Alaska Native children. As a part of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative, LMIC brings together federal agencies, communities, nonprofits, corporate partners, and tribes to end the epidemic of childhood obesity in Indian Country within a generation by everyone playing a role. The launch was held at the Menominee Nation in Keshena , Wisconsin .
Release No. 0217.11
Contact:
Weldon Freeman (202) 690-1384
USDA Recognized by the National Trust for Historic Preservation for Its Work to Revitalize, Strengthen America 's Rural Main StreetsDES MOINES, Iowa, May 25, 2011 - Agriculture Under Secretary for Rural Development Dallas Tonsager today was presented with the 2011 Main Street Leadership Award by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in honor of USDA's support to revitalize rural commercial areas. He accepted the award on behalf of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
Release No. 0212.11
Contact:
Department of the Interior Communications 202-208-6416
USDA Office of Communications 202-720-4623Interior Deputy Secretary Hayes and Agriculture Deputy Secretary Merrigan Announce $9.1 million to Fund Collaborative Projects for Bay-Delta Water Use Efficiencies
WASHINGTON, May 18, 2011—Deputy Secretary of the Interior David J. Hayes and Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today announced that by working together to leverage monies for water delivery agencies and agricultural producers in California's Central Valley, agencies of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture will provide $9.1 million in funding to five water/power delivery districts to save water, improve water management and create new supplies for agricultural irrigation.
"This cooperative effort is a concrete step forward in coordinating and leveraging federal actions to meet water supply needs while alleviating the ecological decline of the California Bay-Delta," Deputy Secretary Hayes said.
Release No. 0205.11
Contact:
Kendra Barkoff, 202-208-6416 Matthew Herrick, 202-720-3088
Renewable Energy Development on Public Lands Highlighted in Interagency Report to CongressWASHINGTON — Even as the nation battled the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico , the Obama Administration continued to make significant gains last year in expanding renewable energy initiatives on public lands and offshore areas, according to a detailed report submitted to Congress by the Interior and Agriculture departments.
"To increase our energy security and to help reduce costs for American consumers, we must continue our balanced and comprehensive approach to energy development on public lands and waters," said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. "The New Energy Frontier report describes the milestone progress we are making in harnessing America 's solar, wind, and geothermal potential, while also supporting safer and more environmentally responsible conventional energy development."
"Winning America 's energy future requires generating energy from a broad portfolio of home-grown renewable options," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "The report released today details the progress we've made in leveraging federal resources to help move our country towards a stronger energy future and reduces our need for importing foreign oil."
Release No. 0201.11
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623 USDA Announces Project to Encourage Development of Next-Generation BiofuelsRelease No. 0217.11
Contact:
Weldon Freeman (202) 690-1384
USDA Recognized by the National Trust for Historic Preservation for Its Work to Revitalize, Strengthen America 's Rural Main StreetsDES MOINES, Iowa, May 25, 2011 - Agriculture Under Secretary for Rural Development Dallas Tonsager today was presented with the 2011 Main Street Leadership Award by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in honor of USDA's support to revitalize rural commercial areas. He accepted the award on behalf of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
Article Preview
LAW REPORTS.; United States Commissioners' Office. The St. Mark's Fire Insurance Company--Qualification of Directors. Jurisdiction of District Courts--A Writ of Prohibition Issued by the Supreme Court. Orders of Arrest to Suppress Lottery Dealing--Writs Directed Against Five Prominent Policy Dealers-One Man Swindled Out of Over $40,000. Liability of Ferry-boat Proprietors for Negligence in the Care of their Boats--A Case of Interest. Letters of Administration Granted. Wills Admitted. Decisions. Court of General Sessions. Court of Special Sessions.
Before Commissioner Osborn. Wallace Dyckman was before the Commissioner yesterday on the charge of passing a counterfeit $50 U. S. Treasury note. Several Witnesses were examined for the defence, their testimony uniting in establishing a most excellent previous character for the young man accused of the offence referred to.
Related Terms
Terms with 'Commission' or 'on' or 'Sustainable' or 'Development' or '(CSD)'
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003
9/11 Commission Act
Acquisition, Development and Construction (ADC) Loan
Affiliate of a Futures Commission Merchant, Commodity Trading Advisor, Commodity Pool Operator or Introducing Broker
African Development Foundation
Agreement on Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
Airport Development [Aeronautics and Space]
Alaska Nanuuq Commission
Alcohol Beverages Control Commission (ABCC)Definition List
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Commission of Review
Commission of Rebellion
Commission of Oyer and Terminer
» Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
Commission Plan
Commission Salesman
Commission to Examine a Witness
Commissioned Officer
Commissioner in Chancery
Commission of Rebellion Law & Legal DefinitionThis is also termed as a writ of rebellion. In 1841 the commission of rebellion was abolished. Commission of rebellion empowered a layperson to arrest and to present a defendant before the Chancery to enforce obedience to a decree.
Commission of Oyer and Terminer Law & Legal Definition
In History, commission of Oyer and Terminer is a royal appointment authorizing a judge to go on the assize circuit and hear felony and treason cases. Under the commission of Oyer and Terminer, the judges can only proceed upon an indictment found at the same assize and before themselves, as the judges are directed to inquire as well as to hear and determine the same. However, they must first inquire by means of the grand jury or inquest, before they are empowered to hear and determine by the intervention of the petit jury.
Commission is a term which has different meanings. It could refer to
- A warrant or authority, from the government or a court, which empowers the person named to execute official acts. For example, the student received his commission to the U.S. Navy after graduation.
- The authority under which a person transacts business for another.
- A body of persons acting under lawful authority to perform certain public services. For example, the public service commission.
- The act of doing or perpetrating a crime.
- A fee paid to an agent or employee for a particular transaction. It is usually a percentage of the money received from the transaction. For example, a real-estate agent's commission.
A sales commission is a sum of money paid to an employee contingent upon an event, usually selling a certain amount of goods or services. Employers sometimes use sales commissions as incentives to increase worker productivity. A commission may be paid in addition to a salary or instead of a salary. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require the payment of commissions.
In the case of a breach of an express contract provision, the employee is entitled to receive compensation for damages caused by the employer's failure to fulfill its obligations under the contract. An employee may also be entitled to receive damages in connection with a violation of his or her implied rights. Recovery of damages in the form of commissions earned but not paid, in connection with work performed prior to the separation, for example, are generally recoverable.
The following is an example of a company's policy on commissions earned but not paid:
- The Company will pay affiliates 30 days after the end of the month during which commissions were earned. This will allow for most returns, if any. You will be able to see on your screen the amount payable to you at any time.
- If commissions earned during any calendar month are less than US$20, the Company may hold those commissions until the month in which the total amount due is at least US$20. In the case of overseas affiliates who may be subject to high fees per banking transaction, we will withhold payment until such time as a higher limit stipulated by you is reached.
- Commissions earned but not yet paid will be held in a separate account until paid and will not be commingled with the Company's funds.
Commissioner in Chancery Law & Legal Definition
Commissioner in chancery is a neutral attorney appointed by circuit court to gather facts and conduct depositions in a case. S/he shall prepare a report stating his/her findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the case, along with their recommendations. Generally commissioners in chancery are appointed for certain circuit court cases. A commissioner in chancery may charge fees for services rendered by virtue of his/her office.
The circuit court will appoint the commissioner in chancery in the following cases:
(1)where there is an agreement between parties in concurrence of the court; or
(2)where a motion is moved by a party upon good cause.
The court on its own motion can also appoint a commissioner in chancery. Likewise, a commissioner in chancery can be appointed in uncontested divorce cases. Upon referring any matter to a commissioner in chancery by the court, the clerk shall mail or deliver to the commissioner a copy of the decree of reference [Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:23].
Upon appointment a commissioner in chancery shall accurately set a time and place for the first meeting of the parties or their attorneys, and shall notify the parties or their attorneys about time and place decided. A commissioner in chancery shall proceed with all reasonable diligence to execute the decree of reference.
According to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-610, the report of a commissioner in chancery will not have the weight of a jury verdict on conflicting evidence. The court shall confirm or reject the report of a commissioner in chancery in whole or in part, according to the view which it entertains on the basis of law and the evidence in each case.
Commissive Waste Law & Legal Definition
Commissive waste refers to waste caused by the affirmative acts of the tenants. It can be waste caused by the commission of some positive act which causes injury to the property like pulling down or otherwise destroying a house, cutting down timber, or the like. Generally, it consists of some destructive act of the tenant himself, but destructive acts of a stranger for which the tenant is liable, have been classified under the head of positive waste.
Commissive waste is also termed voluntary waste; active waste or affirmative waste.
Hazardous Waste Removal CAL-INC.com/Hazardous_Waste
Hazardous Materials Abatement Svcs Over 30 Years Experience. Call Now!
1st DUI in California www.CaliforniaDUIHelp.com
1st time DUI? We can help save your license. Call today for a lawyer.
Hazardous Waste Disposal www.starlitewaste.com
Serving CA, Disposal/Transportion 800-576-9278
Waste Disposal Contract www.CommercialDumpster.com
Long-Term Waste Solutions From WM® Get A Custom Quote Free Today!
Community Law & Legal Definition
Community refers to the group of people or a society living together in a specific local area or a group of people with similar rights or interests. Community means neighborhood or locality.
Community Action Agency Law & Legal Definition
According to 10 CFR 440.3 [Title 10 Energy; Chapter II Department of Energy; Subchapter D Energy Conservation; Part 440 Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons], the term Community Action Agency means “ private corporation or public agency established pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-452, which is authorized to administer funds received from Federal, State, local, or private funding entities to assess, design, operate, finance, and oversee antipoverty programs.”
Community Capacity Development Office [CCDO] Law & Legal Definition
The Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) is an office of the U.S. Department of Justice that works within local communities to reduce crime in and improve the quality of life. The CCDO is a component of the Office of the Justice Programs. Its functions include; designing strategies for deterring crime, promoting economic growth, and enhancing quality of life. The CCDO helps communities to help themselves, enabling them to develop solutions to public safety problems and to strengthen leadership to implement and sustain those solutions.
Community Development Financial Institution Law & Legal Definition
According to 12 USCS § 4702 (5), [Title 12. Banks And Banking; Chapter 47. Community Development Banking ; Community Development Banking And Financial Institutions] the term community development financial institution means:
“(A) In general. he term "community development financial institution" means a person (other than an individual) that--
(i) has a primary mission of promoting community development;
(ii) serves an investment area or targeted population;
(iii) provides development services in conjunction with equity investments or loans, directly or through a subsidiary or affiliate;
(iv) maintains, through representation on its governing board or otherwise, accountability to residents of its investment area or targeted population; and
(v) is not an agency or instrumentality of the United States , or of any State or political subdivision of a State.
(B) Conditions for qualification of holding companies.
(i) Consolidated treatment. A depository institution holding company may qualify as a community development financial institution only if the holding company and the subsidiaries and affiliates of the holding company collectively satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (A).
(ii) Exclusion of subsidiary or affiliate for failure to meet consolidated treatment rule. No subsidiary or affiliate of a depository institution holding company may qualify as a community development financial institution if the holding company and the subsidiaries and affiliates of the holding company do not collectively meet the requirements of subparagraph (A).
(C) Conditions for subsidiaries. No subsidiary of an insured depository institution may qualify as a community development financial institution if the insured depository institution and its subsidiaries do not collectively meet the requirements of subparagraph (A).”
Related Terms
Terms with 'Community' or 'Development' or 'Financial' or 'Institution'
1862 Institution
1890 Institution
1994 Institution
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003
Academic Institution
Academy of Financial Divorce Practitioners
Accredited Educational Institution
Acquisition, Development and Construction (ADC) Loan
Adult Care Institution
Adult Correctional Institution [Education]Definition List
Community Development Finance
Community Development Corporations
Community Debt
Community Day Program [Education]
Community Custody Program (CCP)
» Community Development Financial Institution
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Community Facility
Community Financial Institution [Banks & Banking]
Community Housing Development Organization [HUD]
Community Income
Related Terms
Terms with 'Commission' or 'of' or 'Oyer' or 'and' or 'Terminer'
9/11 Commission Act
Affiliate of a Futures Commission Merchant, Commodity Trading Advisor, Commodity Pool Operator or Introducing Broker
Agreement on Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Alaska Nanuuq Commission
Alcohol Beverages Control Commission (ABCC)
American Battle Monuments Commission
Appalachian Regional Commission
Atomic Energy Commission
Binational Commission [Education]
Boxing CommissionDefinition List
Commission of Lunacy
Commission of Fine Arts
Commission of Delegates
Commission of an Offense
Commission Meeting
» Commission of Oyer and Terminer
Commission of Rebellion
Commission of Review
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
Commission on International Religious Freedom Law & Legal Definition
The Commission on International Religious Freedom (“Commission”) makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress with respect to matters involving international religious freedom. It is established pursuant to 22 USCS § 6431. The following are the objectives of the Commission:
1.Reviewing of the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom presented in the country reports on human rights practices;
2. Evaluating U.S. government policies in response to violations of religious freedom;
3.Evaluating the U.S. government policies with respect to countries found to be taking deliberate steps and making significant improvement in respect for the right of religious freedom.
Related Terms
Terms with 'Commission' or 'on' or 'International' or 'Religious' or 'Freedom' or ''
130-30 Strategy
19c3 Stock
3-A Sanitary Standards and Accepted Practice
341 notice
361st ISR Group
3780 Protocol
4 Years with a One Year Cliff
50th-Percentile Adult Male
707b Action
9/11 Commission ActDefinition List
Commission of Review
Commission of Rebellion
Commission of Oyer and Terminer
Commission of Lunacy
Commission of Fine Arts
» Commission on International Religious Freedom
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
Commission Plan
Commission Salesman
Commission to Examine a Witness
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Law & Legal Definition
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, or CDFI Fund, is a fund established by the Reigle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The CDFI Fund provides financial assistance and information to community development financial institutions, or CDFI. Financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, loan funds, and community development venture capital funds, can apply to the CDFI Fund for formal certification as a CDFI. The CDFI Fund offers a variety of financial programs to provide capital to CDFIs, such as the Financial Assistance Program, Technical Assistance Program, Bank Enterprise Award Program, and the New Markets Tax Credit Program.
Related Terms
Terms with 'Community' or 'Development' or 'Financial' or 'Institutions' or 'Fund'
107th Meridian Escrow Fund
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003
Academy of Financial Divorce Practitioners
Acquisition, Development and Construction (ADC) Loan
African Development Foundation
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
Airport Development [Aeronautics and Space]
American Community Survey
America's Community Bankers
Animal Legal Defense FundDefinition List
Community Development Financial Institution
Community Development Finance
Community Development Corporations
Community Debt
Community Day Program [Education]
» Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Community Facility
Community Financial Institution [Banks & Banking]
Community Housing Development Organization [HUD]
Community Income
Community Learning Center [Education]
Stewardship Law & Legal DefinitionStewardship refers to responsibility of taking care of another person's property or financial affairs. In religious orders, stewardship refers to taking care of finances. Generally, stewardship refers to an employee taking care of the domestic affairs of a household. In ships, aircrafts, restaurants and trains, stewardship refers to job of employees taking care of the passengers' affairs.
United States Tax Court Rules of
Practice and ProcedureThe pages listed below represent the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure in their entirety with all additions and amendments. They are the official files released by the U.S. Tax Court.
Except for the introductory material which is in HTML format, all the other material is in PDF format.
Also at the bottom of this page is a search button to our search engine. From there you can search either the entire U.S. Tax Court section, or all of UncleFed's Tax*Board.
Introduction to the U.S. Tax Court - HTML
Frequently Asked Questions - HTML
Address & Hours of Operation - HTML
Fees & Charges for Filing Petitions - HTML
Search Opinions of the U.S. Tax Court
Download all the Rules in one file . 297 pages; (1.6 megs)
Cross-environmental Media Grants
Grants and Funding
- EPA Grants Resources
- Federal Grants Resources
- Environmental Media Grants
- Cross-environmental Media Grants
About CFDA
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) - the on-line database of all Federal programs available. Each grant is assigned a specific CFDA program code and listed after each EPA grant program. Use the program code to search the database to find further information.
- Educational
- Enforcement and Compliance
- Environmental Multimedia
- Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
- Place-Based Programs
- Research and Science
EducationalInternships, Training, Workshops and Fellowships for the Office of Air and Radiation
(CFDA: 66.037)Purpose: To support, Internships, Training, Workshops and Fellowships, and Technical Monitoring in support of the Clean Air Act. These activities will support: (1). The development of career-oriented personnel qualified to work in occupations involving environmental protection and air pollution abatement and control; (2). Provides technical training for State, local, territorial, Indian Tribal environmental control agencies; (3). Enhances the capability of state and local agencies responsible for environmental pollution control or other agencies with similar pollution control responsibilities; (4). provides educational renewal for career oriented personnel to achieve additional knowledge through academic professional training; (5). supports students pursuing courses of study in fields relevant to the study and control of mobile source air pollution and traineeship; and, (6). Brings new people into the environmental control field.
Contact : Office of Air and RadiationProtection of Children and Older Adults (Elderly) from Environmental Health Risks
(CFDA: 66.609)Purpose: Supports efforts by government organizations and educational institutions to establish or enhance their ability to take actions that will reduce environmental risks to the health of children or elderly population.
Contact: Office of Children's Health Protection at (202) 564-2188
Enforcement and ComplianceCompliance Assistance Support for Services to the Regulated Community and Other Assistance Providers
(CFDA: 66.305)Purpose : To provide financial assistance to private nonprofit institutions, universities, and public agencies to develop projects to improve environmental compliance within an identified industrial/government sector. The funds are to be used to create compliance assistance tools utilizing industry and commercial communication channels to deliver the assistance tools.
Contact : Regional Compliance Assistance CoordinatorsPurpose : Providing financial resources to build and improve the compliance assurance and enforcement capacity of federally-recognized Indian tribal governments (tribes), inter-tribal consortia, or tribal organizations by providing financial resources and to improve compliance with environmental laws. As required by statute, such capacity building efforts may include economic, social science, statistical research, development, studies, surveys, demonstrations, investigations, public education, training, and fellowships to the extent authorized under the federal environmental laws listed above. This Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number covers EPA's Environmental Program Management (EPM) resources targeted for compliance assurance and enforcement in Indian country and other tribal areas, including those in Alaska.
Contact : Regional Compliance and Enforcement Tribal Contacts
Environmental MultimediaPerformance Partnership Grants
(CFDA: 66.605)Purpose: Provide tribes and states with greater flexibility to address their highest environmental priorities, improve environmental performance, achieve administrative savings, and strengthen partnerships between EPA and the states or tribes. PPGs are an alternative assistance delivery mechanism and do not represent funding in addition to grants provided under individual authorities. Recipients can conduct activities in multiple areas and combine two or more of twenty different EPA grants, including GAP resources.
Contact: Regional Tribal Contacts
Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program
(CFDA: 66.608)Purpose: Facilitates electronic exchange of environmental, health, and geographic data to make it easier for EPA and its partners on the Exchange Network to obtain the timely and accurate information needed to make better decisions.
Contact: The Exchange Network Help Desk is available for technical support, between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm (EST) at 888-890-1995.
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
(CFDA: 66.035)Purpose: The CARE program is a competitive grant program that offers an innovative way for communities to take action to reduce toxic pollution.
Contact: Call toll free at 1-877-CARE 909
Environmental Policy and Innovation Grants
(CFDA: 66.611)Purpose: Supports activities that reduce pollutants generated and increase conservation of natural resources, improve economic information and analytic methods to support projects on the benefits, costs and impacts of environmental programs and on incentive-based and voluntary environmental management strategies and mechanisms.
Contact: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation at (202) 564-4332
Healthy Communities Grant Program
(CFDA: 66.110)Purpose : Grants are awarded to support projects that meet two criteria: 1) They must be located in and directly benefit one or more Target Investment Areas(Environmental Justice Areas of Potential Concern, Places with High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive Populations, and/or Urban Areas); and 2) They must achieve measurable environmental and public health results in one or more of the Target Program Areas (defined in the annual funding announcement). Funds for all projects should support activities to restore or revitalize the environment, provide education, outreach, training, organize, or conduct community planning activities in the Target Program Areas (defined in the annual funding announcement).
Contact : Urban Environmental Program (UEP) team at (888) EPA-REG1 (toll-free phone)Congressionally Mandated Projects
(CFDA: 66.202)Purpose : These assistance agreements involve Congressionally directed projects/programs for specific purposes in EPA's annual Appropriations Act or annual Appropriations Conference Report. These assistance agreements support surveys, studies and investigations, research and demonstrations, and special purpose assistance for specific purposes and/or designated organizations. The projects are assistance agreements which are associated with: (1) various environmental requirements (e.g. wastewater treatment); (2) identifying, developing, and/or demonstrating necessary pollution control techniques to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution; and/or (3) evaluating the economic and social consequences of alternative strategies and mechanisms for use by those in economic, social, governmental, and environmental management positions.
Contact Your EPA Regional Tribal Contact based on your location .International Financial Assistance Projects Sponsored by the Office of International Affairs
(CFDA: 66.931)Purpose : To provide technical assistance, training, information exchange and other forms of cooperation to enhance the capabilities of governments and other stakeholders to protect human health and the environment regionally and globally.
Contact : Call the Office of International Affairs (OIA) at 202-564-6613
Place-Based ProgramsGreat Lakes Program
(CFDA: 66.469)Purpose: To restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), in concert with USEPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, leads a consortium of programs, agencies, and public and private institutions in attaining specific objectives and actions that will reduce contaminants, restore habitat, and protect the living resources of the basin. Great Lakes Strategy 2002, developed by EPA in conjunction with other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies and accessible at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/index.html, guides the activities of these organizations towards the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement goal of restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
Contact: Great Lakes National Program Office at (312) 353-2117
Gulf of Mexico Program
(CFDA: 66.475)Purpose:
- To assist States, Indian Tribes, interstate agencies, and other public or nonprofit organizations in developing, implementing, and demonstrating innovative approaches relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution;
- To expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore and protect the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of the region and to achieve the goals and priorities recommended by the Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board (a Federal Advisory Committee) and the funding priorities of the Gulf of Mexico Program Office (GMPO).
Contact: Gulf of Mexico Program Office (228) 688-3726
Regional Environmental Priority Projects
(CFDA: 66.111)Purpose: To support investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and special purpose assistance to protect public health and prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Projects may be single media or multimedia which support the regional environmental priorities. Single media grants support pollution prevention efforts for individual environmental law statutes. Multimedia grants are assistance agreements that are awarded citing two or more environmental law statutes, appropriation legislation, or applicable legislative history as the statutory authority.
Contact: EPA Region 7 Drinking Water/Groundwater Management Branch at (913) 551-7667
Research and ScienceRegional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) Research Projects
(CFDA: 66.512)Purpose : Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a long-term research program designed to statistically monitor the conditions of our Nation's ecological resources. REMAP, which is a component of EMAP, is a partnership between the Office of Research and Development, EPA's Regional Offices, other federal agencies, states, local governments, and U.S. Tribal nations. It was developed to test the applicability of EMAP's probabilistic approach to answer questions about ecological conditions at regional and local levels. The primary objectives of the solicited research are to assist states and tribes in incorporating statistically valid ecological monitoring data into their environmental decision-making process.
Contact : Please direct questions about the REMAP to the REMAP Coordinator or one of the Regional Coordinators .Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Research Program
(CFDA: 66.509)Purpose: Supports research on environmental and human health effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. Supports research to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental, and environmental systems to use in environmental management decisions.
Contact: Submit comments to NCER
Or mail to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460Office of Research and Development Consolidated Research/Training
(CFDA: 66.511)Purpose: Supports surveys, studies and investigations and special purpose assistance to determine the environmental effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides; and identify, develop, and demonstrate effective pollution control techniques; and perform risk assessments to characterize the potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards.
Contact: Office of Research and Development at (202) 564-6680
Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of Research and Development
(CFDA: 66.510)Purpose: Supports research on environmental effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides; to identify, develop and demonstrate necessary and effective pollution control techniques; and to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental and environmental systems to use in environmental management decisions.
Contact: Office of Research and Development at (202) 564-6680
Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of the Administrator
(CFDA: 66.610)Purpose: Support surveys, studies and investigations, and special purpose assistance associated with air quality, acid deposition, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides.
Contact: Office of Children's Health Protection at (202) 564-2188
GSA Embarks on Comprehensive Reinvention of Leasing
Results Could Signal Major Beneficial Changes for Landlords By Mark Heschmeyer May 4, 2011
- Looking to bring its leasing procedures more in line with market conditions and correct inconsistencies with market practices, the U.S. General Services Administration just released its final Lease Reform Implementation Report.
According the GSA, the process of offering to lease space to the federal government differs so much from the process in the private commercial real estate sector that it discourages many building owners or developers from offering space in their buildings to the government. In particular, the GSA report identified such problems as:
- The length of time it requires to conclude a lease from end to end;
- The high cost to offerors to compete for GSA leases;
- Delays and inconsistencies in the requirements development process; and
- The detrimental effects that holdovers and extensions have on lessors' abilities to refinance or sell their GSA-occupied buildings.
The report links these issues with a lack of response from the open market, and limited offerings translate into higher rates, the GSA has said.
The reforms are important to the market given the amount of space the GSA leases across the country. At the end of FY 2010, the GSA lease inventory rose to 191.4 million rentable square feet consisting of 9,285 leases in 8,094 buildings.
The largest share of the inventory by lease count - 82% - is vested in smaller leases, up to $500,000 net annual rent (total rent less operating expense rent). These leases account for only 30.2% of total square footage and 24.4% of rent.
Conversely, leases in excess of $1 million net annual rent represent 9% of the lease count but 56% of the square footage and 61% of total annual rent.
GSA's reinvention seeks to "streamline, standardize, and simplify" the process for both large and small leases, and thus the results could signal major beneficial changes for all concerned.
"The final report and the associated Leasing Desk Guide provide the details on the much-anticipated GSA leasing process overhaul that has been underway for the past 18 months or so," said Darian A. LeBlanc, senior managing director, Government Services Group of Cassidy Turley in Washington, DC. "My initial impressions are that the changes are more than superficial and provide some much-needed streamlining to the federal leasing process. The modified process and lease forms will be comfortable and 'user friendly' to those familiar with past GSA practices.
GSA will gradually pilot their new process to the real estate industry over the coming months to identify possible improvements and troubleshoot potential problems.
"The older process will still be used, in parallel, for most lease procurements during this period. Eventually the new process will become the standard," LeBlanc added. "There will be a learning curve, but otherwise I don't see many negatives to the new process. It certainly can't be any worse than the current process."
The GSA hopes to have some of the changes in effect soon. Others, such as those requiring statutory changes, will take longer.
GSA's includes many aspects that are GSA-internal, such as establishing teams and sub-teams for different aspects of review and follow-up, but many of the aspects are directly related to how the private sector will compete for GSA leases. Some of the more interesting proposals include the following.
- The simplified lease model for leases up to the SLAT (Simplified Lease Acquisition Threshold), currently $150,000 net average annual rent;
- A petition to increase the SLAT to $500,000;
- Applying industry space measurement technology consistently by specifying ABOA (ANSI/BOMA Office Area) as the GSA standard for the area where people and furniture
are housed;
- A "one and done" acquisition plan, no longer a living document that must be revised; and
- Adoption of the Master Format standard for costing and pricing tenant improvement construction costs.
Adjusting lease terms is also up for major changes. GSA has traditionally negotiated a 10-year lease term with five years firm, providing the government with termination rights any time after the fifth full year of occupancy. The rest of the market, typically signs 3- to 5-year leases with the right to renew for additional periods at the end.
Under the new plan, GSA is examining the cost impact of termination rights. Among other options the GSA will consider is allowing for longer firm terms beyond five years (6, 7, 8, 9, or 10-plus years, not to exceed 20 years firm). These options would enable lessors to arrange better cash flow for financing, GSA to better manage project workload, and customers to lease space according to true need. If the Simplified Lease Model is used, the standard default for leases with terms of five years or less will be firm, with no termination rights.The Obama administration announced that it will impose stricter pollution controls on millions of acres of wetlands and tens of thousands of streams.
1. Federal Financial Report, SF425. A final SF425 (see website for the form and
instructions) report must be submitted within 90 days after the budget period end date.
The report must be prepared in accordance with the instructions and forwarded to:
Las Vegas Finance Center
PO Box 98515
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8515
or faxed to 702-798-2423
Generally applicable reporting requirements may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, for example:
State/Local Governments and Indian Tribes, see 40 CFR Part 31.
Recipients other than State/Local Governments, such as Universities, etc., see 40
CFR Part 30. Cooperative Agreements for Superfund State Contracts for
Superfund Response Action, see 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O.
In addition, recipients should consult the terms and conditions of their assistance
agreements for additional reporting requirements.
FEDS PROPOSE TO NULLIFY THE GENERAL MINING LAW!
[Federal Register: April 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 80)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 23230-23236] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26ap11-21] [[Page 23230]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Parts 2090 and 2800 [WO 300-1430-PQ] RIN 1004-AE19 Segregation of Lands--Renewable Energy AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Proposed Rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing this rule to amend the BLM's regulations found in 43 CFR parts 2090 and 2800 by adding provisions allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate from the operation of the public land laws, by publication of a Federal Register notice, public lands included in a pending or future wind or solar energy generation right-of-way (ROW) application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a potential future wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization under the BLM's ROW regulations, in order to promote the orderly administration of the public lands. If segregated under this rule, such lands would not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law of 1872 (Mining Law), but not the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (Mineral Leasing Act) or the Materials Act of 1947 (Materials Act), subject to valid existing rights, for a period of up to 2 years. The BLM is also publishing in today's Federal Register an interim temporary final rule (Interim Rule) that is substantively similar to this proposed rule. The Interim Rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register for a period not to exceed 2 years after publication, or the completion of the notice and comment rulemaking process for this proposed rule whichever occurs first. DATES: You should submit your comments on the proposed rule on or before June 27, 2011. The BLM need not consider, or include in the administrative record for the final rule, comments that the BLM receives after the close of the comment period or comments delivered to an address other than those listed below (see ADDRESSES). ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 2143LM, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE19. Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street, SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions at this Web site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Brady at (202) 912-7312 or the Division of Lands, Realty, and Cadastral Survey at (202) 912-7350 for information relating to the BLM's renewable energy program or the substance of the proposed rule, or Ian Senio at (202) 912-7440 for information relating to the rulemaking process generally. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to contact the above individuals. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures II. Background III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Procedural Matters I. Public Comment Procedures If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by one of several methods: You may mail comments to Director (630) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 2143LM, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE19. You may deliver comments to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street, SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003; or You may access and comment on the proposed rule at the Federal eRulemaking Portal by following the instructions at that site (see ADDRESSES). Written comments on the proposed rule should be specific, should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and should explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposed rule that the comment is addressing. The BLM need not consider or include in the Administrative Record for the proposed rule comments that we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES). Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street, SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003 during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except holidays. They will also be available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions at this Web site. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information-- may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment for the BLM to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. II. Background Congress has directed the Department of the Interior (Department) to facilitate the development of renewable energy resources. Promoting renewable energy is one of this Administration's and this Department's highest priorities. In Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Stat. 660, Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct), Congress declared that before 2015 the Secretary of the Interior should seek to have approved non- hydropower renewable energy projects (solar, wind, and geothermal) on public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Even before the EPAct was enacted by Congress, President Bush issued Executive Order 13212, ``Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects'' (May 18, 2001), which requires Federal agencies to expedite the production, transmission, or conservation of energy. After passage of the EPAct, the Secretary of the Interior issued several orders emphasizing the importance of renewable energy development on public lands. On January 16, 2009, Secretary Kempthorne issued Secretarial Order 3283, ``Enhancing Renewable Energy Development on the Public Lands,'' which states that its purpose is to ``facilitate[ ] the Department's efforts to achieve the goal Congress established in Section 211 of the * * * [EPAct] to approve non- hydropower renewable energy projects on the public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity by 2015.'' The order also declared that ``the development of renewable energy resources on the public lands will increase domestic energy production, provide alternatives to traditional energy resources, and enhance the energy security of the United States.'' Approximately 1 year later, Secretary Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3285A1, ``Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the Interior'' (Feb. 22, 2010), which reemphasized the development of [[Page 23231]] renewable energy as a priority for the Department. The order states: ``Encouraging the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy is one of the Department's highest priorities. Agencies and bureaus within the Department will work collaboratively with each other, and with other Federal agencies, departments, states, local communities, and private landowners to encourage the timely and responsible development of renewable energy and associated transmission while protecting and enhancing the Nation's water, wildlife, and other natural resources.'' As a result of these and other initiatives, the interest in renewable energy development on public lands has increased significantly. In addition to these specific directives, the BLM is charged generally with managing the public lands for multiple uses under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq., including for mining and energy development. In some instances, different uses may present conflicts. For example, a mining claim located within a proposed ROW for a utility-scale solar energy generation facility could impede the BLM's ability to process the ROW application because the Federal government's use of the surface cannot endanger or materially interfere with a properly located mining claim. In order to help avoid such conflicts while carrying out the Congressional and Executive mandates and direction to prioritize the development of renewable energy, the BLM is proposing this rule. This rule will help promote the orderly administration of the public lands by giving the BLM a tool to minimize potential resource conflicts between ROWs for proposed solar and wind energy generation facilities and other uses of the public lands. Under existing regulations, lands within a solar or wind energy generation ROW application or within an area identified by the BLM for such ROWs, unlike lands proposed for exchange or sale, remain open to appropriation under the public land laws, including location and entry under the Mining Law, while BLM is considering the ROW. Over the past 5 years, the BLM has processed 24 solar and wind energy development ROW applications. New mining claims were located on the public lands described in two of these proposed ROWs during the BLM's consideration of the applications. Many of the mining claims in the two proposed ROWs were not located until after the existence of the wind or solar ROW application or the identification of an area by the BLM for such ROWs became publicly known. In addition, over the past 2 years, 437 new mining claims were located within wind energy ROW application areas in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming and 216 new mining claims were located within solar energy ROW application areas. In the BLM's experience, some of these claims are likely to be valid, but others are likely to be speculative and not located for true mining purposes. As such, the latter are likely filed for no other purpose than to provide a means for the mining claimant to compel some kind of payment from the ROW applicant to relinquish the mining claim. The potential for such a situation exists because, while it is relatively easy and inexpensive to file a mining claim, it can be difficult, time-consuming, and costly to prove that the mining claim was not properly filed or does not contain a valid discovery. Regardless of the merits of a particular claim, the location of a mining claim in an area covered by a ROW application (or identified for such an application) creates uncertainty that interferes with the orderly administration of the public lands. This uncertainty makes it difficult for the BLM, energy project developers, and institutions that finance such development to proceed with such projects because a subsequently located mining claim potentially precludes final issuance of the ROW and increases project costs, jeopardizing the planned energy development. For example, the location of a new mining claim during the pendency of the BLM's review process for a ROW application could preclude the applicant from providing a concrete proposal for their use and occupancy of the public lands. This is because under the Mining Law, a ROW cannot materially interfere with a previously located mining claim. Since all properly located claims are treated as valid until proven otherwise, the filing of any mining claim can substantially delay the processing of a ROW application. As a result, a ROW applicant could either wait for the BLM to determine the validity of a claim, or the applicant could choose to modify or relocate its proposed surface use to avoid conflicts with the newly located mining claim, leading to additional expense, which could jeopardize the renewable energy project.\1\ The BLM's processing time for the ROW application could be significantly increased if any changes necessitated by the newly located mining claim require the BLM to undertake any additional analyses, such as those required by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA). Under these circumstances, the BLM's ability to administer the public lands in an orderly manner is impeded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This uncertainty may also discourage banks from financing such projects. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This proposed rule is needed to provide the BLM with the necessary authority to ensure the orderly administration of the public lands and to prevent conflicts between competing uses of those lands. By allowing for temporary segregation, it would enable the BLM to prevent new resource conflicts from arising as a result of new mining claims that may be located within land covered by any pending or future wind or solar energy generation facility ROW applications, or public lands identified by the BLM for potential future wind or solar energy generation ROWs pursuant to its ROW regulations. Temporary segregation is generally sufficient because once a ROW has been authorized, subsequently located mining claims would be subject to the previously authorized use, and any future mining claimant would have notice of such use. The proposed rule would supplement the authority contained in 43 CFR subpart 2091 to allow the BLM to segregate from appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, public lands included in a pending or future wind or solar energy generation ROW application or public lands identified by the BLM for a wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization under 43 CFR subpart 2804, subject to valid existing rights.\2\ This proposed rule would not affect valid existing rights in mining claims located before any segregation made pursuant to the final rule. The proposed rule also would not affect ROW applications for uses other than wind or solar energy generation facilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The existing regulations define segregation as ``the removal for a limited period, subject to valid existing rights, of a specified area of the public lands from the operation of some or all of the public land laws, including the mineral laws, pursuant to the exercise by the Secretary of regulatory authority for the orderly administration of the public lands.'' 43 CFR 2091.0-5(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Segregations under the proposed rule would be accomplished by publishing a notice in the Federal Register and would be effective upon the date of publication. The BLM considered a rule that would allow for segregation through notation to the public land records, but it rejected this approach because it would not provide the public [[Page 23232]] with the same level of notice that a Federal Register notice would accomplish. The proposed rule would provide for segregation periods of up to 2 years, with the option, if deemed necessary by the appropriate BLM State Director, to extend the segregation of the lands for up to an additional 2 years. The proposed rule would not authorize the BLM to continue the segregation after a final decision on a ROW has been made. Finally, not all wind or solar ROW applications would lead to a segregation, as the BLM may reject some applications and others may not require segregation because conflicts with mining claims are not anticipated. Segregation rules, like this proposed rule, have been held to be ``reasonably related'' to the BLM's broad authority to issue rules related to ``the orderly administration of the public land laws,'' \3\ because they allow the BLM to protect an applicant for an interest in such lands from ``the assertion by others of rights to the lands while the applicant is prevented from taking any steps to protect'' its interests because it has to wait for the BLM to act on its application.\4\ It is for this purpose that existing regulations at 43 CFR subpart 2091 provide the BLM with the discretion to segregate lands that are proposed for various types of land disposals, such as land sales, land exchanges, and transfers of public land to local governments and other entities under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926. These regulatory provisions allowing segregations were put in place over the years to prevent resource conflicts, including conflicts arising from the location of new mining claims, which could create encumbrances on the title of the public lands identified for transfer out of Federal ownership under the applicable authorities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Bryon v. United States, 259 F. 371, 376 (9th Cir. 1919); Hopkins v. United States, 414 F.2d 464, 472 (9th Cir. 1969). \4\ See, e.g., Marian Q. Kaiser, 65 I.D. 485 (Nov. 25, 1958). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Such a situation occurred in Nevada, and the proposed land purchaser chose to pay the mining claimant to relinquish his claims in order to enable the sale to go forward. In fact, in the land sales context, the segregative period was increased from 270 days to a maximum term of 4 years, as it was found that the original segregative period was insufficient and that conflicting mining claims were being located before sales could be completed. This proposed rule would provide the BLM the same flexibility it currently has for land disposals by allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate lands that are included in pending or future applications for solar and wind facility ROWs or on lands identified by the BLM for such ROWs. This would allow for the orderly administration of the public lands by eliminating the potential for conflicts with mining claims located after the BLM publishes a Federal Register notice of such ROW applications or areas. As noted above, the development of renewable energy is a high priority for the Department of the Interior and the BLM. The location of mining claims, however, under certain circumstances, may impede the BLM's ability to administer the public lands in an orderly manner and to carry out its Congressional and Executive mandate to facilitate renewable energy development on those lands because the BLM currently lacks the ability to maintain the status quo on such lands while it is processing a ROW application for a wind or solar energy generation facility. This proposed rule would help the BLM maintain the status quo and prevent potential resource use conflicts by allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate lands being considered for a wind or solar energy generation facility. III. Section-by-Section Analysis This proposed rule would revise 43 CFR sections 2091.3-1 and 2804.25 by adding language that would allow the BLM to segregate lands, if the BLM determines it to be necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. This authority to segregate lands would be limited to lands included in a pending or future wind or solar energy ROW application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization under the BLM's ROW regulations. If segregated under this rule, such lands, during the limited segregation period, would not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, subject to valid existing rights. The new language also specifies that the segregative effect terminates and the lands would automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws: (1) Upon the BLM's issuance of a decision regarding whether to issue a ROW authorization for the solar or wind energy generation proposal; (2) Upon publication of a Federal Register notice of termination of the segregation; or (3) Without further administrative action at the end of the segregation period provided for in the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation, whichever occurs first. The segregation would be effective for a period of up to 2 years; however, the rule provides that the segregation may be extended for an additional 2 years if the appropriate BLM State Director determines and documents in writing, prior to the expiration of the segregation, that an extension of the segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. The BLM would publish an extension notice in the Federal Register, if it determines that an extension of the segregation is necessary. The extension of the segregation would not be for more than 2 years. The maximum total segregation period would not exceed 4 years. IV. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action \5\ and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule would provide the BLM with regulatory authority to segregate public lands included within a pending or future wind or solar energy generation ROW application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a potential future wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization, from appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, if the BLM determines that segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. To assess the potential economic impacts, the BLM must first make some assumptions concerning when and how often this segregation authority may be exercised. The purpose of any segregation would be to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands to facilitate the development of renewable energy resources by avoiding conflicts between renewable energy development and the location of mining claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ ``Significant regulatory action'' means any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely effect in a material way the economy * * *; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs * * * or (4) Raise novel legal and policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or * * * this Executive Order.'' Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 FR 51738 (Oct. 4, 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wind--Wind energy ROW site testing and development applications are widely scattered in many western states. Most of the public lands with pending [[Page 23233]] wind energy ROW applications are currently managed for multiple resource use, including being open to mineral entry under the mining laws. Over the past 2 fiscal years, 437 new mining claims were located within wind energy ROW application areas in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Based on the BLM's recent experience processing wind energy ROW applications, it is anticipated that approximately 25 percent of the lands with current wind energy ROW applications will reach the processing stage where a Notice of Intent (NOI) is issued. Without trying to identify specific locations of new mining claims located within those application areas, we assume a quarter of those new mining claims, or 109 new mining claims, would be located within wind application areas that would be segregated under this new regulation. The actual number of claimants affected will likely be less than this estimate since a single claimant typically files and holds multiple mining claims. Of the 437 new mining claims filed within the wind energy ROW application areas in fiscal year (FY) 2009 and 2010, there was an average of about eight mining claims per claimant. Assuming that there was nothing unique about the number of claims and distribution of claims per claimant for FY 2009 and 2010, we estimate that 14 entities would be potentially precluded from filing new mining claims on lands that would be segregated within the identified wind energy ROW application areas under this rule. For these entities, the economic impacts of the segregation are the delay in when they could locate their mining claims and a potential delay in the development of such claims because such development would be subject to any approved ROW issued during the segregative period. However, a meaningful estimate of the value of such delays is hard to quantify given the available data because it depends on the validity and commercial viability of any individual claim, and the fact that the location of a mining claim is an early step in a long process that may eventually result in revenue generating activity for the claimant. The other situation where entities might be affected by the segregation provision is if a new Plan of Operations or Notice is filed with the BLM during the 2-year segregation period. In such a situation, the BLM has the discretion under the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR subpart 3809) to require the preparation of a mineral examination report to determine if the mining claims were valid before the lands were segregated before it processes the Plan of Operations or accepts the filed Notice. If required, the operator is responsible to pay the cost of the examination and report. Within the past 2-year period, five Plans of Operations and two Notices were filed with the BLM within wind ROW application areas. Assuming (1) A quarter of those filings would be on lands segregated under this rule, (2) the number of Plan and Notice filings received in the past 2 years is somewhat reflective of what might occur within a 2- year segregation period, and (3) the BLM would require mineral examination reports to determine claim validity on all Plans and Notices filed within the segregation period, we estimate two entities might be affected by this rule change.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ With respect to any particular Plan of Operation or Notice that might be filed in areas segregated under the rule, the BLM would separately determine, on a case-by-case basis and consistent with the requirements of 43 CFR 3809.100(a), whether to require a validity determination for such Plan or Notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should the BLM require the preparation of mineral examination reports to determine claim validity, the entity filing the Plan or Notice would be responsible for the cost of making that validity determination. Understanding that every mineral examination report is unique and the costs vary accordingly, we assume an average cost of $100,000 to conduct the examination and prepare the report. Based on the number of Plans and Notices filed within the wind energy right-of- way application areas in FY 2009 and 2010, we estimate the total cost of this provision could be about $200,000 over the 2-year period. Solar--As noted above, the primary purpose of any segregation under this proposed rule would be to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands to facilitate the development of valuable renewable resources and to avoid conflicts between renewable energy generation and mining claim location. The main resource conflict of concern involves mining claims that are located after the first public announcement that the BLM is evaluating a ROW application, and prior to when the BLM issues a final decision on the ROW application. Most of the public lands with pending solar energy ROW applications are currently managed for multiple resource use, including mineral entry under the mining laws. Where the BLM segregates lands from mineral entry, claimants would not be allowed to locate any new mining claims during the 2-year segregation period. Over the past 2 years, 216 new mining claims were located within solar energy ROW application areas. Based on the BLM's recent experience processing solar energy ROW applications, it is anticipated that approximately 25 percent of the lands with current solar energy ROW applications would reach the processing stage where a NOI is issued. Without trying to identify which ROWs would be granted or the specific locations of new mining claims within those application areas, we assume a quarter of those new mining claims, or 54 new mining claims, would be located within solar ROW application areas that would be segregated under this rule. The actual number of claimants affected will likely be less than this estimate since a single claimant typically locates and holds multiple mining claims. Of the 216 new mining claims located within solar energy ROW application areas in the past 2 years, there was an average of about eight mining claims per claimant. Assuming that there was nothing unique about the number and distribution of claims per claimant for the past 2 years, we estimate seven entities would potentially be precluded from locating new mining claims on lands segregated within the identified solar energy ROW application areas under the rule change. For these entities the economic impacts of the segregation would be the delay in when they can locate their mining claim and a potential delay in the development of such claim because such development would be subject to any approved ROW issued during the segregative period. However, a meaningful estimate of the value of such delays is hard to quantify given the available data because it depends on the validity and commercial viability of any individual claim, and the fact that the location of a mining claim is an early step in a long process that may eventually result in revenue generating activity for the claimant. The other situation where entities might be affected by the proposed segregation provisions is where a new Plan of Operations or Notice is filed with the BLM during the 2-year segregation period. In such a situation, the BLM has the discretion under the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR subpart 3809) to require a mineral examination to determine if the mining claims were valid before the lands were segregated before it approves the Plan of Operations or accepts the filed Notice. If required, the operator is responsible to pay the cost of the examination and report. Within the past 2-year period, two Plans of Operations and two Notices were filed with the BLM within solar [[Page 23234]] ROW application areas. Assuming (1) a quarter of those filings would be on lands segregated under this rule, (2) the number of Plan and Notice filings received in the past 2 years is reflective of what might occur within a 2-year segregation period, and (3) the BLM would require mineral examination reports to determine claim validity on all Plans and Notices filed within the segregation period, we estimate one entity might be affected by this rule change.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ With respect to any particular Plan of Operation or Notice that might be filed in areas segregated under the rule, the BLM would separately determine, on a case-by-case basis and consistent with the requirements of 43 CFR 3809.100(a), whether to require a validity determination for such Plan or Notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should the BLM require a mineral examination to determine claim validity, the entity filing the Plan or Notice would be responsible for the cost of making that validity determination. Understanding that every mineral examination report is unique and the costs would vary accordingly, we assume an average cost of $100,000 to conduct the examination and prepare the report. Based on the number of Plans and Notices filed within the solar energy ROW application areas in the past 2 years, we estimate the total cost of this provision could be about $100,000 over the 2-year period. It is not possible to estimate the number of future rights-of-way for wind or solar energy developments that could be filed on areas identified as having potential for either of these sources of energy. This is because there are many variables that could have an impact on such filings. Such variables include: the quantity and sustainability of wind at any one site, the intensity and quantity of available sunlight, the capability of obtaining financing for either wind or solar energy projects, the proximity of transmission facilities that could be used to carry the power generated from a specific wind or solar energy right-of-way project, and the topography of the property involved. The number of mining claims would also be based on speculation as to the mineral potential of an area, access to markets, potential for profitability, and a host of other geologic factors, such as type of mineral, depth of the mineral beneath the surface, quantity and quality of the mineral, and other such considerations. Based on this analysis, the BLM concludes that this proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. This proposed rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This proposed rule would not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor would it raise novel legal or policy issues. The full economic analysis is available at the office listed under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Clarity of the Regulation Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: 1. Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? 2. Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? 3. Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? 4. Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections? 5. Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? How could this description be more helpful in making the proposed rule easier to understand? Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the regulations to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section. National Environmental Policy Act The BLM has determined that this proposed rule is administrative in nature and involves only procedural changes addressing segregation requirements. This proposed rule would result in no new surface disturbing activities and therefore would have no effect on ecological or cultural resources. Potential effects from associated wind and/or solar ROWs would be analyzed as part of the site-specific NEPA analysis for those activities. In promulgating this rule, the government is conducting routine and continuing government business of an administrative nature having limited context and intensity. Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205. The proposed rule does not meet any of the extraordinary circumstances criteria for categorical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.215. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulation (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department, the term ``categorical exclusion'' means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect on procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulations to determine the extent to which there is anticipated to be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We anticipate that the proposed rule could potentially affect a few entities that might otherwise have located new mining claims on public lands covered by a wind or solar energy facility ROW application currently pending or filed in the future. We further anticipate that most of these entities would be small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration; however, we do not expect the potential impact to be significant. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A copy of the analysis that supports this determination is available at the office listed under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act For the same reasons as discussed under the Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review section of this preamble, this proposed rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). That is, it would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; it would not result in major cost or price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or regions; and it would not [[Page 23235]] have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. A copy of the analysis that supports this determination is available at the office listed under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector of $100 million or more per year; nor would it have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments. The rule would impose no requirements on any of these entities. Therefore, the BLM does not need to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) This proposed rule is not a government action that interferes with constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed rule would set out a process, by publication of a notice in the Federal Register, that could be used to segregate public lands included within a pending or future solar or wind energy generation ROW application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a potential future wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization. This segregation would remove public lands from the operation of the public land laws, including the location of new mining claims under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act for a period of up to 2 years, with the authority to extend the segregation for up to an additional 2-year period, in order to promote the orderly administration of the public lands. Because any segregation under this proposed rule would be subject to valid existing rights, it does not interfere with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications and does not require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the levels of government. It would not apply to States or local governments or State or local government entities. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that this proposed rule does not include policies that have Tribal implications. This rule would apply exclusively to lands administered by the BLM. It would not be applicable to and would have no bearing on trust or Indian lands or resources, or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian Tribes, or on U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Information Quality Act In developing this proposed rule, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use In accordance with Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use, including a shortfall in supply, price increase, or increased use of foreign supplies. The BLM's authority to segregate lands under this rule would be of a temporary nature for the purpose of encouraging the orderly administration of public lands, including the generation of electricity from wind and solar resources on the public lands. Any increase in energy production as a result of this rule from wind or solar sources is not easily quantified, but the proposed rule is expected to relieve obstacles and hindrances to energy development on public lands. Executive Order 13352--Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not impede the facilitation of cooperative conservation. The rule takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; properly accommodates local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Author The principal author of this rule is Jeff Holdren, Realty Specialist, Division of Lands and Realty, assisted by the Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington Office, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. List of Subjects 43 CFR Part 2090 Airports; Alaska; Coal; Grazing lands; Indian lands; Public lands; Public lands--classification; Public lands--mineral resources; Public lands--withdrawal; Seashores. 43 CFR Part 2800 Communications; Electric power; Highways and roads; Penalties; Pipelines; Public lands--rights-of-way; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities stated below, the BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR parts 2090 and 2800 as follows: Subchapter B--Land Resource Management (2000) PART 2090--SPECIAL LAWS AND RULES 1. The authority citation for part 2090 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1740. Subpart 2091--Segregation and Opening of Lands 2. Amend Sec. 2091.3-1 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 2091.3-1 Segregation * * * * * [[Page 23236]] (e)(1) The Bureau of Land Management may segregate, if it finds it to be necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands, lands included in a right-of-way application for the generation of electrical energy under 43 CFR subpart 2804 from wind or solar sources. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management may also segregate public lands that it identifies for potential rights-of-way for electricity generation from wind or solar sources. Upon segregation, such lands will not be subject to appropriation under the public lands laws, including location under the General Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Bureau of Land Management will effect such segregation by publishing a Federal Register notice that includes a description of the lands covered by the segregation. The Bureau of Land Management may impose a segregation in this way on both pending and new right-of-way applications. (2) The effective date of segregation is the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register and the date of termination of the segregation is the date that is the earliest of the following: (i) Upon issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of- way; (ii) Automatically at the end of the segregation period provided for in the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation, without further action by the authorized officer; or (iii) Upon publication of a Federal Register notice of termination of the segregation. (3) The segregation period may not exceed 2 years from the date of publication of the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation unless, on a case-by-case basis, the Bureau of Land Management State Director determines and documents in writing, prior to the expiration of the segregation period, that an extension is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. If an extension is determined to be necessary, the Bureau of Land Management will publish a notice in the Federal Register, prior to expiration of the initial segregation period that the segregation is being extended for up to 2 years. Only one extension may be authorized; the total segregation period therefore cannot exceed 4 years. PART 2800--RIGHTS-OF-WAY UNDER THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT 3. The authority citation for part 2800 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1733, 1740, 1763, and 1764. Subpart 2804--Applying for FLPMA Grants 4. Amend Sec. 2804.25 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 2804.25 How will BLM process my application? * * * * * (e)(1) The BLM may segregate, if it finds it to be necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands, lands included within a right-of-way application under 43 CFR subpart 2804 for the generation of electricity from wind or solar sources. In addition, the BLM may segregate public lands that it identifies for potential rights-of-way for electricity generation from wind or solar sources under the BLM's right-of-way regulations. Upon segregation, such lands will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the General Mining Law, but not from the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The BLM will effect such segregation by publishing a Federal Register notice that includes a description of the lands covered by the segregation. The Bureau of Land Management may impose a segregation in this way on both pending and new right-of-way applications. (2) The segregative effect of the Federal Register notice terminates on the date that is the earliest of the following: (i) Upon issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of- way; (ii) Automatically at the end of the segregation period provided for in the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation, without further action by the authorized officer; or (iii) Upon publication of a Federal Register notice of termination of the segregation. (3) The segregation period may not exceed 2 years from the date of publication of the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation unless, on a case by case basis, the BLM State Director determines and documents in writing, prior to the expiration of the segregation period, that an extension is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. If an extension is determined to be necessary, the BLM will publish a notice in the Federal Register, prior to expiration of the initial segregation period that the segregation is being extended for up to 2 years. Only one extension may be authorized; the total segregation period therefore cannot exceed 4 years. Dated: April 6, 2011. Wilma A. Lewis, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. 2011-10017 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Consumers win as Supreme Court upholds freedom of contract
Author : Deborah J. La Fetra
The United States Supreme Court today ensured that consumers will continue to be able to enter into contracts with companies to arbitrate any future disputes that will arise. Individual consumer arbitration speedily resolves disputes in an informal forum, providing benefits to consumers and businesses alike. Today's decision ensures that these consumers and businesses cannot be forced into inefficient, expensive, and time-consuming class action procedures when they agreed to proceed on an individual basis.
Continue reading "Consumers win as Supreme Court upholds freedom of contract" »
Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Everyone can make a difference.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
Today's environmental tip: Everyone can make a difference! High school students can study links between everyday actions at their high school, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. Become a "climate ambassador" leader in your school or neighborhood and motivate friends, schools, and community leaders. Talk to you friends - help spread the word!
More information: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcastsen español: ¡Todos pueden hacer una diferencia! Los estudiantes de escuela superior pueden estudiar los vínculos entre las acciones cotidianas en sus colegios, las emisiones con efecto de gas invernadero y el cambio climático. Conviértase en un embajador climático en su colegio o vecindario. Motive a sus amigos, colegios, y líderes comunitarios. ¡Dígale a sus amigos que ayuden a correr la voz!
Más información: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htmWant 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/tips2.htm
Subject: Water News Release (HQ): Obama Administration Affirms Comprehensive Commitment to Clean Water
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
CONTACTS:
(CEQ) Taryn Tuss, 202-456-6998
(EPA) 202-564-6794; press@epa.gov
(USDA) 202-720-4623
(DOI) Kendra Barkoff, 202-208-6416
(DOA) Moira Kelley, 703-614-3992
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2011
Obama Administration Affirms Comprehensive Commitment to Clean Water
WASHINGTON – Recognizing the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities, the Obama administration released a national clean water framework today that showcases its comprehensive commitment to protecting the health of America's waters. The framework emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities, stakeholders and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation's energy and economic security.
For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act, along with other important federal measures, has been a cornerstone of our effort to ensure that Americans have clean and healthy waters. The administration's framework outlines a series of actions underway and planned across federal agencies to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth. It includes draft federal guidance to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act nationwide; innovative partnerships and programs to improve water quality and water efficiency; and initiatives to revitalize communities and economies by restoring rivers and critical watersheds.
“Clean water and healthy waterways are vital to the health and vibrancy of our communities and the strength of our economy,” said Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “Working with our partners across communities, governments and sectors, we are taking comprehensive action to ensure Americans have the clean and healthy waters they need and deserve.”
”The steps we're outlining today will be instrumental to protecting the waters of the United States, and ensuring that the vital natural resources our communities depend on for their health and their economy are safeguarded for generations to come,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “After four decades of progress on clean water, there is still work to be done to address unfinished business and tackle new threats to our waters. American families and businesses are counting on us to maintain and improve the rivers, lakes, streams and other waters that support thousands of communities and millions of jobs across the country.”
"Healthy rivers and clean waters are fundamental to our economy, our health, and our way of life," said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. "With growing pressures on our natural systems, we must work to secure cleaner, safer, and more reliable water supplies for our communities."
“As our nation's foremost conservationists, farmers, ranchers and forest owners have a values system rooted in rural America that recognizes we cannot continue to take from the land without giving something back,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “At USDA, we are working with farmers, ranchers and forest owners to conserve land, plant stream buffers for cleaner water, and install other conservation practices. We also will continue to invest in rural water and community facility projects that help small towns ensure their citizens have access to safe and reliable drinking water. The draft Clean Water Act guidance released today reflects USDA's work with our federal partners by maintaining existing exemptions for ongoing agricultural and forestry activities, thereby providing farmers, ranchers and forest landowners with certainty that current agricultural and forestry activities can continue.”
"The Army is very proud of our ecosystem restoration efforts across the nation,” said Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy. “The proposed joint EPA and Army guidance will clarify Clean Water Act jurisdiction and help the Corps and its partner agencies protect important aquatic resources and watersheds that communities rely on for their quality of life and essential services."
Clean water provides critical health, economic and livability benefits to American communities. Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has kept billions of pounds of pollution out of American waters, doubling the number of waters that meet safety standards for swimming and fishing. Despite the dramatic progress in restoring the health of the nation's waters, an estimated one-third of American waters still do not meet the swimmable and fishable standards of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, new pollution and development challenges threaten to erode our gains, and demand innovative and strong action in partnership with federal agencies, states, and the public to ensure clean and healthy water for American families, businesses, and communities.
The Obama administration is safeguarding clean water by:
Promoting Innovative Partnerships
Federal agencies are partnering with states, tribes, local governments and diverse stakeholders on innovative approaches to restore urban waters, promote sustainable water supplies, and develop new incentives for farmers to protect clean water.
Enhancing Communities and Economies by Restoring Important Water Bodies
The Obama administration is dedicating unprecedented attention to restoring iconic places like the Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico and Everglades, investing in action and helping states, local governments and stakeholders find pollution control solutions that are tailored to their specific needs.
Innovating for More Water Efficient Communities
The administration is working with policymakers, consumers, farmers and businesses to save water – and save money – through 21 st century water management policies and technology.
Ensuring Clean Water to Protect Public Health
The Obama administration is aggressively pursuing new ways to protect public health by reducing contaminants in Americans' drinking water. We are updating drinking water standards, protecting drinking water sources, modernizing the tools available to communities to meet their clean water requirements, and providing affordable clean water services in rural communities.
Enhancing Use and Enjoyment of our Waters
The administration is promoting stewardship of America's waters through innovative programs and partnerships. These efforts include expanding access to waterways for recreation, protecting rural landscapes, and promoting public access to private lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.
Updating the Nation's Water Policies
The administration is strengthening protection of America's waters and American communities. We are modernizing water resources guidelines, and updating federal guidance on where the Clean Water Act applies nationwide. The draft guidance will protect waters that many communities depend upon for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and provide clearer, more predictable guidelines for determining which water bodies are protected from pollution under the Clean Water Act. The guidance is open for 60 days of public comment to all allow all stakeholders to provide input and feedback before it is finalized.
Supporting Science to Solve Water Problems
The administration is using the latest science and research to improve water policies and programs and identify and address emerging pollution challenges.
More information and to read the Obama administration's clean water framework:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/clean-water
Two accounts in the Treasury may be available to GSA: the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 16 U.S.C. sect. 460 l -5(a), or the Federal Buildings Fund, Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. H, sect. 412, 118 Stat. 2809, 3199, 3259 (Dec. 8, 2004).
Neither GSA nor BLM has authority to use the sales proceeds of surplus federal property to purchase public lands. BLM augmented its appropriation when it improperly used the proceeds of sales of surplus federal real property to fund the acquisition of land in the Dixon transactions. To rectify this situation, BLM should adjust its accounts by transferring funds from a BLM account available to acquire lands in the Dixon transactions to the appropriate account in the Treasury designated by GSA. GSA should designate the fund in the Treasury that should have received the proceeds of the land sales, since the sales were under GSA's authority. If BLM finds that it lacks sufficient budget authority to cover the adjustment, it should report a violation of the Antideficiency Act in accordance with 31 U.S.C. sect. 1351. [25]
BLM's expansive interpretation of its authority would give it wide latitude to carry out land sales and purchases without adhering to the proper safeguards that Congress specified in BLM's authorizing statutes. These safeguards help ensure not only that the government receives fair value when public lands are sold, but also that the public lands are managed in a manner that protects the public interest. BLM argues that an "exchange" transaction may span over ten years and include routine payments of cash between the government and private parties, while featuring individual transactions that BLM itself described as being a "purchase" or a "sale." In some "purchases," as BLM itself called the transactions, BLM stated that it paid amounts "as full consideration for the purchase of the subject property."
BLM's interpretation of its authority stretches the meaning of its authorizing statutes and of common words such as "exchange" beyond plausible boundaries. BLM has entered into complex multiphase, multiparty land transactions that rely on a legal interpretation of its exchange authority that is fundamentally flawed. BLM has statutory authority to purchase land and to sell land while following specific procedures. BLM cannot avoid these procedures by simply labeling a series of purchases and sales as being an "exchange." BLM's actions circumvent the carefully crafted statutory framework governing the sale, purchase, and exchange of public land—a framework designed to protect the public interest—while also violating longstanding statutes that Congress enacted to protect its constitutional power of the purse.
The lack of a single, Agency-wide plan results in poor coordination and limited oversight, and may lead to an ineffective use of resources. As a result, EPA cannot (1) ensure that consistent solid waste management assistance is provided, (2) accurately determine the risks of open dumps, or
(3) determine whether efforts are effective nationwide.We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator develop an Agency-wide plan to implement consistent and effective tribal solid waste management capacity assistance. We recommend that this single plan outlines the roles and responsibilities of EPA program offices and regions, and identifies the Agency resources required for these activities. The plan should also implement output and outcome measures that track how consistently and effectively EPA activities are provided for tribes. Further, this plan should include (1) internal controls to ensure consistent data collection, (2) a process to ensure coordination between EPA program offices and regions, and (3) a timeline specifying when the activities and outcomes outlined in the plan are expected to be accomplished. OIG, March 21, 2011.
Daily reading for 05/05/2011
Disposing of excess properties with 'little or no value' can save billions
Federal Times
Many federal properties will be demolished or given to states and localities to save on maintenance and upkeep costs.Rainy day funds explained: How much money should states have in the bank?
read more share:
Stateline
In the many states that have emptied or nearly emptied their reserve funds — or never placed much money in them to begin with — serious discussion is taking place over how and when to begin saving for the rainy days of the futureActual Innocence
Categories:Definition
An absence of facts required for conviction under a criminal statute. For example, a defendant accused of robbery who never illegally took anyone's property is actually innocent of the charge.Overview
Defendants often claim actual innocence when appealing criminal convictions. To prove actual innocence, the defendant must submit additional evidence that undermines the court's confidence in the verdict reached by the trier of fact. Appellate rules normally require that this evidence must not have been available to the defendant at the time of the trial.Caselaw
"A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial.” Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 509 (3d Cir. 1997). House v. Bell 311 F.3d 767; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23930; 2002 FED App. 0406P (6th Cir.)See also
Ocean Salmon Fishing Season to Open April 2
April 1, 2011 by CA DFG News Leave a Comment
Contacts:
James Phillips, Ocean Salmon Project, (707) 576-2375
Andrew Hughan, DFG Office of Communications, (916) 322-8944For recreational fishing enthusiasts, springtime is in the air — and this year, in the water as well. Saturday, April 2 is opening day for salmon fishing in ocean waters off most of California and for the first time in many years the forecast suggests anglers may have many a tight line to look forward to.
Both the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) approved the April 2 opening date based on scientific information suggesting that the Sacramento River Fall Chinook ocean population size is more than 700,000 fish — almost triple last year's forecast.
“We are cautiously optimistic that Sacramento River salmon stocks have recovered to the point that fisheries this year — our California sport and commercial ocean fisheries as well as river fisheries — can be sustained while still being confident that enough fish will return to natural spawning grounds and hatcheries to reproduce next fall,” said the Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) Marija Vojkovich, who represents the state of California on the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The April 2 opening date applies to waters south of Horse Mountain (near Cape Mendocino) southward to the U.S.-Mexico border. For waters north of Horse Mountain to the California-Oregon border, the opening date will be determined in mid-April, but is anticipated to be a date in May.
When the 2011 recreational season is open off California, salmon fishing is allowed seven days per week, the minimum size limit is 24-inches total length, and the bag and possession limit is two fish per person. The retention of coho salmon and steelhead remains prohibited in all ocean fisheries.
Sacramento River fall chinook generally comprise 80 to 90 percent of the salmon catch in ocean waters off California. Therefore, the forecast for this stock plays a crucial role in determining when and where fishing opportunities can be provided. In 2008 and 2009, virtually no fishing was allowed because of low abundance forecasts and poor returns of fish to the Sacramento River Basin. Fishing in 2010 was also constrained for the same reasons.
Approximately 125,300 adult fall Chinook returned to the Sacramento River Basin in the fall of 2010, exceeding the minimum goal of 122,000 adult fish. In 2009, the return of adult Sacramento River Fall Chinook salmon was an all-time low of approximately 39,500 fish. The 2010 return is the highest observed since 2006.
Most charter boat operators no longer carry one-day licenses for purchase. DFG reminds anglers to purchase their license ahead of time at one of approximately 1,500 license agent locations or online at www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/ .
For complete regulations as well as additional information on the 2011 fishing season, visit www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp .
Drought's over – but don't lose the spirit
By Union-Tribune Editorial Board
Friday, April 1, 2011 at midnight
A decidedly wet year has led Gov. Jerry Brown to proclaim an end to California's drought. Yea!
It will take time for the effect of new regulations and rules to reach the San Diego County Water Authority and the two dozen retail agencies in our county.
For agricultural customers on alternative pricing systems with mandatory reductions, Brown's declaration may mean a greater supply and bigger crops.
For consumers, it may mean less guilt in sprinkling the lawn or washing the car. But with the wholesale price of treated water here up 70 percent the last five years, such indulgences have a cost.
County residents should take pride in reducing water use 38 percent over four years. But we must keep on in this vein.
“In arid Southern California,” said Dennis Cushman of the county water authority, “we're always just one year away from the next one-year drought or the first year of a multiyear drought.”
He's right – so don't stop conserving.
16 U.S.C. § 1861a : US Code - Section 1861A: Transition to sustainable fisheries
16 U.S.C. § 1861b : US Code - Section 1861B: Fisheries enforcement plans and reporting
16 U.S.C. § 1862 : US Code - Section 1862: North Pacific fisheries conservation
16 U.S.C. § 1863 : US Code - Section 1863: Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment Program
Court finds California salmon protections wanting
By JEFF BARNARD AP Environmental Writer Posted: 04/25/2011 GRANTS PASS, Ore.—A judge has ruled that the California Department of Fish and Game's deal allowing ranchers to continue drawing water from two Klamath Basin tributaries in return for habitat improvements does not do enough to protect threatened coho salmon.The ruling from Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith of the Superior Court of California in San Francisco tells the department to figure out how many salmon are actually killed by water withdrawals from the Scott and Shasta rivers in Northern California, come up with some effective steps to improve salmon survival in those rivers, and give the public a chance to comment on it all.
"Despite (the department's) good faith efforts and potential hardship to water users, the Court must uphold the legislature's mandate to preserve listed species and conduct environmental review of all foreseeable consequences," Goldsmith wrote.
The department is reviewing the ruling and considering its options for moving forward, said spokeswoman Jordan Traverso.
The ruling issued April 20 came in a lawsuit brought by groups representing salmon fishermen, an Indian tribe, and conservation groups challenging the legality of the Shasta Valley and Scott River Watershed-Wide Permitting Programs. The department approved the programs in 2010 to bring about 100 farms and ranches into compliance with the state Endangered Species Act in an area that had seen fierce pockets of resistance.
"This ruling does not put water back in the river or fish back in the river," said Klamath Riverkeeper Erica Terence, one of the plaintiffs in the cases. "It just keeps at bay a program that quite possibly would have done more harm than good."
Federal threatened species protection for Klamath Basin coho led to the shut-off of irrigation water to more than 1,000 farms and ranches on a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border in 2002, but did not affect irrigation on private lands in the Scott and Shasta valleys. California protected coho in 2005.
Historically, the Scott and Shasta rivers offered important habitat for coho salmon in the Klamath Basin, but have seen numbers falling to dangerously low levels in recent years. Last year the Scott—which regularly runs dry from irrigation withdrawals, requiring thousands of young fish to be rescued—saw only 881 adult coho return, according to the department. The Shasta saw only 49. Two out of three years, no fish return to the Shasta.
ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY & RESOURCES:
On Fri., April 22, the Department of Environmental Protection filed a petition (.pdf) asking the EPA to withdraw its January 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary in Florida. In a cover letter (.pdf) to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Department of Environmental Protection head Herschel Vinyard wrote that the state of Florida remains “committed to addressing excess nutrients pollution” and requests that the EPA restore the responsibility of nutrient management back to the state. #
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (EPA)
NEWLY PUBLISHED REGULATIONS
Approvals and promulgations of state implementation plans, state of Colorado, interstate transport of pollution revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: “interference with visibility” requirement: Final rule, published April 20, 2011, effective May 20, 2011
The Environmental Protection Agency partially approves the Colorado Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted o March 31, 2010 ,
addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, the EPA fully approves those parts of the Colorado March 31, 2010 submission that address the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement prohibiting a state's emissions from interfering with any other state's required measures to protect visibility for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
Data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides, notification to Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services: Notification to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, published April 20, 2011
The Environmental Protection Agency notifies the public that the Administrator of the
EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services a draft final rule under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The EPA codifies a separate listing of data requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations for the registration of antimicrobial pesticide products. These data requirements reflect current scientific knowledge and current EPA regulatory practices.
Pesticide tolerances, fluopicolide: Final rule, published April 20, 2011 , effective April 20, 2011 , objections and requests for hearings by June 20, 2011
The Environmental Protection Agency establishes tolerances for residues of the fungicide, fluopicolide [2,6-dichloro-N-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]methyl]benzamide], including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only fluopicolide in or on the commodity. The fluopicolide metabolite, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM), is regulated with its own set of tolerances. This regulation establishes tolerances for
residues of fluopicolide and its metabolites in or on multiple commodities. A tolerance is the amount of a toxin legally allowed on produce.
South Coast part of the California State Implementation Plan, Revisions, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System: Final rule, published April 20, 2011 , effective May 20, 2011 , index to the docket for this action available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street , San Francisco , California
The Environmental Protection Agency takes final action to approve a source-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the South Coast Air Quality Management District part of the California SIP. This source-specific SIP revision is known as the CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System. The
SIP revision consists of enabling language and the AB 1318 Tracking System to revise the District's SIP approved New Source Review program. The SIP revision allows the District to transfer offsetting emission reductions for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and one of its precursors, sulfur oxides , to the CPV Sentinel Energy Project, which will be a natural gas fired power plant.
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
National pollutant discharge elimination system, requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities and Phase I facilities: Proposed rule, published April 20, 2011 , comments by July 19, 2011
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes a rule that would establish requirements under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for all existing power generating facilities and existing manufacturing and industrial facilities that withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day of water from waters of the U.S. and use at least twenty-five (25) percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes. The proposed national requirements, which would be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, would establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at these facilities by setting requirements that reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The proposed rule constitutes the EPA's response to the remand of the Phase II existing facility rule and the remand of the existing facilities part of the Phase III rule. In addition, the EPA also responds to the decision in Riverkeeper I and proposes to remove from the Phase I new facility rule the restoration-based compliance alternative and the associated monitoring and demonstration requirements. The EPA expects this proposed regulation would minimize adverse environmental impacts, including substantially reducing the harmful effects of impingement and entrainment. As a result, the EPA anticipates this proposed rule would help protect ecosystems affected by cooling water intake structures and preserve aquatic organisms and the ecosystems they inhabit in waters used by cooling water intake structures at existing facilities.
Pesticide petitions filed for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment, published April 20, 2011 , comments by May 20, 2011
The Environmental Protection Agency announces its receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Everyone can make a difference.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
Today's environmental tip: Everyone can make a difference! High school students can study links between everyday actions at their high school, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. Become a "climate ambassador" leader in your school or neighborhood and motivate friends, schools, and community leaders. Talk to you friends - help spread the word!
More information: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcastsen español: ¡Todos pueden hacer una diferencia! Los estudiantes de escuela superior pueden estudiar los vínculos entre las acciones cotidianas en sus colegios, las emisiones con efecto de gas invernadero y el cambio climático. Conviértase en un embajador climático en su colegio o vecindario. Motive a sus amigos, colegios, y líderes comunitarios. ¡Dígale a sus amigos que ayuden a correr la voz!
Más información: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htmWant 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/tips2.htm
FEMA Dam Safety Publications
FEMA P-679DVD and FEMA P-730CD
New Releases!
The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to announce that the following FEMA National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) publications are now available, at no cost, from the Publications Warehouse.
- Technical Manual: Outlet Works Energy Dissipaters, Best Practices for Design, Construction, Problem Identification and Evaluation, Inspection, Maintenance, Renovation, and Repair, FEMA P-679DVD
- Geotextiles in Embankment Dams, FEMA P-730CD
One of the goals of the NDSP is to encourage design and construction practices that reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure in the United States. FEMA's publication of these two important technical documents for dam design and construction professionals, inspectors, and operation and maintenance personnel is a major ongoing commitment to achieving this goal.
To order your copy of FEMA P-679DVD or FEMA P-730CD from the Publications Warehouse, call 1 (800) 480-2520 or fax your request to (240) 699-0525.
Both FEMA P-679 and FEMA P-730 will be available online by the fall 2011. To view or download other FEMA publications, please visit the FEMA Library, http://www.fema.gov/library/ .
To view or download other NDSP publications and products or to sign up for updates on dam safety publications, news, and events, visit Dam Safety Publications and Resources, http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/damfailure/publications.shtm
Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Wait for the storm to pass.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
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/podcastsen 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.htmWant 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
GOVERNMENT:
applications for posttrial [1] relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.
So in original. Probably should be “post-trial”.
No Coverage for Defense Costs Incurred in Response to CERCLA Demand
From: Sedgwick LLPSummary: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Penn America Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 925451 (4th Cir. (Md.) March 18, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a commercial general liability (CGL) policy providing coverage for “sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of "property damage” did not cover an insured's defense costs incurred in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) demand under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to remediate the presence of hazardous substances on the insured's land. The court ruled that the insured's defense costs did not constitute “property damage” under the CGL policy because the insured's potential liability under CERCLA arose from the EPA's regulatory authority rather than the federal government's rights as a property owner.
The court ruled that the EPA’s demand under CERCLA did not amount to an attempt to vindicate the government’s rights as a property owner, but rather arose from the government’s duty to regulate and remediate hazardous substances deposited on private property. Thus, the court held that the EPA’s demand created only potential regulatory liability, but did not subject the insured to potential liability for damage to federal property. In addition, the court noted that its interpretation of the term “property damage” as applying to risks of tort damage, and not to costs arising from governmental regulation, was reasonable in light of the indeterminate nature of liability under CERCLA, which can often greatly exceed the value of the property to be cleaned.
The budget deal worked out between the White House and Congress for the 2011 fiscal year will directly impact the federal e-government program. The spending agreement will put a severe crimp in a program that bolsters government transparency efforts, as well as initiatives designed to modernize IT management, according to supporters of the e-government initiative.
The program is administered by the Office of E-Government and Information Technology within the Office of Management and Budget .
The E-Government Office "develops and provides direction in the use of Internet-based technologies to make it easier for citizens and businesses to interact with the federal government, save taxpayer dollars, and streamline citizen participation," according to its mission statement.
The program supports USA.gov , the major Web portal for citizen contact with federal agencies; data.gov , a federal website portal providing access to a broad base of federal data and statistics, and the IT Dashboard , a site that reports on the effectiveness of federal IT programs. The day-to-day operations of the e-government program are conducted by the General Services Administration .
The budget agreement slashes US$26 million from the e-government initiative, reducing it from $34 million in 2010 to just $8 million in 2011.
"The cuts made to online transparency programs are deep and debilitating. Compared to other programs, the cuts are disproportionately deep," said Daniel Schuman, policy counsel at the Sunlight Foundation , an open government advocacy group.
In addition to their effect on specific government Web portals, the e-government cuts may also have a domino effect on the management of government IT resources, Schuman told the E-Commerce Times. The budget deal would reduce spending by an estimated $10 million on OMB efforts directed toward the adoption of cloud computing, including the nascent Apps.gov program, data center consolidation, and promotion of mobile media.
Another $9.5 million in cuts would affect the USA.gov portal, the IT Dashboard posting, and the development of a program for measuring IT performance. Funding for the implementation of the OMB 25-point plan for improving federal IT management and procurement would be cut by about $1.5 million.
Congressional Concern
The cuts have not gone unnoticed in Congress.
"I worry that the decision to cut funding for the E-Gov program may well prove to be penny-wise and pound-foolish," Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., says in a letter to Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra.
"I remain concerned with how the new lower funding level for the E-Gov Fund might not only impede the progress made thus far to make government more open and transparent, but also harm efforts to cut wasteful and duplicative spending in the federal government," Carper says.
Carper, who chairs a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee dealing with federal information technology, asked Kundra to provide additional information to the committee on the impact of the cuts and tell him "how our subcommittee can be of help."
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., reportedly is concerned about the cuts and has suggested that possibly through budget "reprogramming," the funding could be at least partially restored, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which cited a Federal News Radio report.
The foundation has distributed a letter about the e-government cuts to Congress.
"Overall, the response from members and congressional staff has been surprise that these programs were on the chopping block in the first place," said Schuman. "Nearly everyone realizes their importance, but not everyone knew the details on how they were funded. Our letter has helped raise awareness of the role the e-government fund plays, and prompted expressions of support for many of these programs."
Home
Sections
Browse
Policy
Learn
- User Information
- Tutorials & History
- View Documents on Public Inspection
- Related Resources
- Document Drafting & Research
- Regulatory Journals
- Regulatory Improvement
Programs and Funding Opportunities
Key: Crosscutting | NSF-wide
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 83 > § 1291 Prev | Next§ 1291. Final decisions of district courts
How Current is This? The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts 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, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the jurisdiction described in sections 1292 (c) and (d) and 1295 of this title.
§ 1294. Circuits in which decisions reviewable
How Current is This? Except as provided in sections 1292 (c) , 1292 (d) , and 1295 of this title, appeals from reviewable decisions of the district and territorial courts shall be taken to the courts of appeals as follows: (1) From a district court of the United States to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district; (2) From the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; (3) From the District Court of the Virgin Islands, to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; (4) From the District Court of Guam, to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.$375.00 /hour - Subject Matter Expert V
About PLF
- Based in California, Pacific Legal Foundation is a nationwide public interest legal organization defending limited government, property rights, individual freedom and a balanced approach to environmental protection.
Please join our fight for constitutional liberty today!Jerry Brown's redevelopment plans
Author: Timothy Sandefur
I was on Northern California's Armstrong & Getty show again this morning to talk about Jerry Brown's attempt to rein in the state's 400+ redevelopment agencies—the government agencies whose job it is to steal your property through eminent domain and give it to private developers. You can listen here and you can learn more about that plan and how you can help at the Castle Coalition and at City Watch.
Access denied: PLF asks Supreme Court to review EPA's obstruction immunity
Author: Luke A. Wake
Pacific Legal Foundation will soon file a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision which flies in the face of long-standing Supreme Court precedent. The case involves EPA's decision to cut off access to and from the navigable waters of the San Joaquin River for a Stockton marina owner, Ryan Voorhees. In 2006 EPA installed a log boom in the Old Mormon Slough, making it impossible for Voorhees to access navigable waters from most of his marina, and scuttling his marine-oriented development plans. Ryan Voorhees, President of CRV Enterprises, says that--in taking away his access rights--EPA has violated the Fifth Amendment because the agency has refused to pay him a dime.
In CRV Enterprises Inc. et al. v. United States , the Federal Circuit recognized that Voorhees, as a waterfront landowner in California, has a right to access navigable waters from every inch of his shoreline; however, the court refused to recognize a compensable taking when EPA destroyed that right by physically obstructing CRV's access to the river. In a jarring departure from existing precedent, the decision held that the Supreme Court's physical takings doctrine does not apply in water rights cases where government has refrained from invading the boundaries of a claimant's private property, unless the government actually depletes or diverts a waterway.Continue reading "Access denied: PLF asks Supreme Court to review EPA's obstruction immunity" »
Two accounts in the Treasury may be available to GSA: the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 16 U.S.C. sect. 460 l -5(a), or the Federal Buildings Fund, Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. H, sect. 412, 118 Stat. 2809, 3199, 3259 (Dec. 8, 2004).
Neither GSA nor BLM has authority to use the sales proceeds of surplus federal property to purchase public lands. BLM augmented its appropriation when it improperly used the proceeds of sales of surplus federal real property to fund the acquisition of land in the Dixon transactions. To rectify this situation, BLM should adjust its accounts by transferring funds from a BLM account available to acquire lands in the Dixon transactions to the appropriate account in the Treasury designated by GSA. GSA should designate the fund in the Treasury that should have received the proceeds of the land sales, since the sales were under GSA's authority. If BLM finds that it lacks sufficient budget authority to cover the adjustment, it should report a violation of the Antideficiency Act in accordance with 31 U.S.C. sect. 1351. [25]
BLM's expansive interpretation of its authority would give it wide latitude to carry out land sales and purchases without adhering to the proper safeguards that Congress specified in BLM's authorizing statutes. These safeguards help ensure not only that the government receives fair value when public lands are sold, but also that the public lands are managed in a manner that protects the public interest. BLM argues that an "exchange" transaction may span over ten years and include routine payments of cash between the government and private parties, while featuring individual transactions that BLM itself described as being a "purchase" or a "sale." In some "purchases," as BLM itself called the transactions, BLM stated that it paid amounts "as full consideration for the purchase of the subject property."
BLM's interpretation of its authority stretches the meaning of its authorizing statutes and of common words such as "exchange" beyond plausible boundaries. BLM has entered into complex multiphase, multiparty land transactions that rely on a legal interpretation of its exchange authority that is fundamentally flawed. BLM has statutory authority to purchase land and to sell land while following specific procedures. BLM cannot avoid these procedures by simply labeling a series of purchases and sales as being an "exchange." BLM's actions circumvent the carefully crafted statutory framework governing the sale, purchase, and exchange of public land—a framework designed to protect the public interest—while also violating longstanding statutes that Congress enacted to protect its constitutional power of the purse.
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Testimony in Courts of the United States . An act to perpetuate testimony in the courts of the United States . May 9, 1872, ch. 146.
CHAP. CXLVI. – An Act to perpetuate Testimony in the Courts of the United States .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That hereafter all depositions taken de benne esse, to be used in any civil cause depending in any court in any district of the United States , for the causes and before the officers mentioned in section thirty of the “Act to establish the judicial courts of the United States .” Approved September twenty-fourth, seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, shall be taken upon reasonable notice, to be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such deposition, to the opposite party or his attorney of record, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition; and in cases in rem, the person having the agency or possession of the property at the time of seizure shall be deemed the adverse party, until a claim shall have been put in, and whenever, by reason of the absence from the district and want of an attorney of record or other reason, the giving of the notice herein required shall be impracticable it shall be lawful to take such depositions as there shall be urgent necessity for taking, upon such notice as any judge authorized to hold courts in such circuit of district shall think reasonable and direct. But this act shall not be construed to affect the power of any such court to cause testimony to be taken under commission, according to the course of the common law, to be used therein. APPROVED, May 9, 1872
Mining Resources. An act to promote the development of the mining resources of the United States . May 10, 1872, ch. 152.
Commissioners of Claims may take Testimony. An act to authorize the commissioners of claims to appoint special commissioners to take testimony, and for other purposes. May 11, 1872, ch 156.
Irrigation of the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tulare Valleys.
An act to provide for a board of commissioners to report a system of irrigation for the San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Tulare, in California. March 3, 1873, ch. 317
Catalyzing New International Collaborations
CNIC Supports New Collaborations Worldwide
Proposals should describe U.S. participation in new international collaborations via activities including, but not limited to: planning visits, small workshops, initial data gathering activities, and the development of research coordination networks. The community is invited to propose innovative mechanisms and strategies for catalyzing new international collaborations to the stage that competitive research and education proposals can be submitted to relevant NSF programs for on-going support of the project. Any well-justified activity that fulfills the goals of the program will be considered. Creative use of technology in promoting international collaboration is encouraged. Funding levels for catalytic activities can typically range from as little as $10,000 to as much as $100,000, depending on the activities proposed.
Proposals may be submitted for consideration after the target dates, but must be discussed with the appropriate OISE geographic region/country Program Officer before submission.
Earth Sciences: Instrumentation and Facilities (EAR/IF)
CONTACTS
Name Phone Room Russell C. Kelz rkelz@nsf.gov (703) 292-4747 790 David D. Lambert dlambert@nsf.gov (703) 292-8558 790 PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Solicitation 11-544DUE DATES
Full Proposal Accepted Anytime
Proposals for the Development of New Instrumentation, Analytical Techniques or Software, Support of National or Regional Multi-User Facilities and Support for Early Career Investigators will be accepted at any time henceforth.
SYNOPSIS
The Instrumentation and Facilities Program in the Division of Earth Sciences (EAR/IF) supports meritorious requests for infrastructure that promotes research and education in areas supported by the Division (see http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=EAR ). EAR/IF will consider proposals for:
1) Acquisition or Upgrade of Research Equipment that will advance laboratory and field investigations, and student research training opportunities in the Earth sciences. The maximum request is $1,000,000. The maximum request for upgrade of research group computing facilities is $75,000;
2) Development of New Instrumentation, Analytical Techniques or Software that will extend current research and research training capabilities in the Earth sciences. The maximum request is $1,000,000;
3) Support of National or Regional Multi-User Facilities that will make complex and expensive instruments or systems of instruments broadly available to the Earth sciences research and student communities;
4) Support for Early Career Investigators to facilitate expedient operation of new research infrastructure proposed by the next generation of leaders in the Earth Sciences. This opportunity allows for submission of a proposal for Acquisition or Upgrade of Research Equipment that includes budget line items associated with support of a new full-time technician who will be dedicated to manage the instrument(s) being requested. Any request for technical support under this opportunity is limited to three years duration. The maximum request is $1,000,000.
Planned research uses of requested instruments, software, and facilities must include basic research on Earth processes SUPPORTED BY THE DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES.
Support is available through grants or cooperative agreements awarded in response to investigator-initiated proposals.
Human resource development and education are expected to be an integral part of all proposals submitted to EAR/IF.
Efforts to support participation of underrepresented groups in laboratory and/or field instrument use and training are encouraged.
All proposers to EAR/IF are invited to consider Support of Outreach and/or Broadening Participation Activities. Proposals submitted to the EAR/IF Program may request up to $20,000 for such activities (please refer to Sections V.A Proposal Preparation Instructions and V.B Budgetary Information).
Proposals requesting equipment, infrastructure or personnel that will also serve disciplines outside the Earth sciences may be jointly reviewed with other programs within the Foundation. EAR/IF will consider co-funding of projects with other NSF programs and other agencies.
NSF Educational Opportunities by Audience
For Undergraduate Students
For Graduate Students
For Postdoctoral Fellows
For K-12 EducatorsBeyond Standing our Ground
Overview
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is leading a law and diversity project, with participation by the Association of American Universities (AAU), which has been funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation. This project will provide in-depth legal resource materials for General Counsels in the AAU (and, we hope, eventually to universities across the country) on effective and legally sustainable approaches to build greater diversity in the faculty, as well as graduate and undergraduate student bodies.Click here to view the full project overview and details of the intial workshop that took place on April 28-29, 2009
Navigating a Complex Landscape to Foster Greater Faculty and Student Diversity in Higher Education
A first-of-its-kind handbook from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Association of American Universities (AAU) offers in-depth, cross-referenced legal resources to help promote effective diversity programs for science faculty and students. Set for release on April 28, 2010, the handbook outlines legally sustainable ways to expand diversity on campuses, particularly within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. For more information and to download a copy of the handbook, visit the Navigating a Complex Landscape page.
Media Coverage
- 01 May 2010
AAAS Daryl Chubin Cites MentorNet as a Leader on Mentoring Studies
- 30 April 2010
How to Encourage Diversity—and Avoid Lawsuits
- 29 April 2010
Science Associations Publish Legal Handbook on Diversity Strategies
- 27 April 2010
Guidance on Diversifying the Science Faculty
- 26 April 2010
Advice for Universities on Helping Women and Minorities in Science
- 23 April 2010
Media Advisory Release: Increasing Diversity in Science and Higher Education
Resources
- Statement for AAAS/AAU Diversity Workshop, [ PDF ] by Robert M. Berdahl, AAU President
- Thoughts on Creativity, Diversity and Innovation in Science & Education, [ PDF ] by S. James Gates, Jr., University of Maryland-College Park
- Yale University's Commitment to Diversity, [ PDF ] Yale University
- AAAS Annual Meeting Symposium, San Diego, CA
- "Access and Broad Diversity in STEM Fields: Real World Effectiveness and Legal Sustainability," [ PPT ] Melinda Grier (University of Oregon) and Jamie Lewis Keith (University of Florida)
- "Demonstrating the Legal Sustainability of Effective STEM Diversity Programs" [ PPT ] Wanda E. Ward (National Science Foundation)
- "Access and Diversity in STEM Field – Key Legal and Policy Issues Associated with Student Diversity" [ PPT ] Steve Winnick (EducationCounsel LLC)
- "Demonstrating the Legal Sustainability of Effective STEM Diversity Programs" [ PPT ] Daryl E. Chubin (AAAS)
How to Receive Your Grant Funds
Once a grant or cooperative agreement has been signed by an EPA award official and affirmed by the recipient organization, recipients are able to request funds.
There are two approved methods by which the recipient may receive funds: Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) and Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP).
Instructions for Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP):
US Treasury Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP) - The ASAP system is the preferred method of payment for EPA grantees. ASAP enrollment is highly encouraged for organizations that have multiple grants/cooperative agreements and for those with a frequent need to request funds. If your organization uses multiple bank accounts for EPA grants/cooperative agreements, you must enroll in ASAP. If you are interested in requesting and receiving funds paperless and electronically via ASAP, please complete the ASAP Initiate Enrollment form and fax it to LVFC at 702-798-2423.
Federal Agencies and organizations receiving federal funds enroll one time to use ASAP. Federal Agencies establish and maintain accounts in ASAP to control the flow of funds to organizations. Federal Agencies enter spending authorizations into their ASAP accounts in accordance with their program needs and schedules. Payment Requestors at organizations initiate payment requests through ASAP to meet cash needs. This is done primarily through on-line connections that organizations have with ASAP. In a case where a financial institution is acting as an agent of the organization, a request for funds can be made via the Federal Reserve's FEDWIRE system. Approved requests for next day or future day (up to 32 calendar days from the date of the payment request) payments are paid via the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system or by FEDWIRE if same day payment is required.
The LVFC enters spending authorizations into the recipient's ASAP accounts in accordance with their program needs and schedules. The recipient can initiate payment requests through ASAP to meet immediate cash needs. The payment process is designed to provide federal funds to a recipient organization within 48 hours for ASAP recipients. Please refer to www.asap.gov for additional information.
Instructions for Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT):
As of October 2010, unless exempt under 2 CFR 25.110, all new grant/cooperative agreement recipients must register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Your organization is also required to maintain and update the information at least annually after the initial registration, and more frequently if required by changes in your information or another award term.
Should you elect to have payments processed via EFT, LVFC has already obtained your organization's banking information in conjunction with your CCR registration. NOTE: If your banking information is not correct or changes at any time prior to the end of your agreement, please update your CCR registration and notify LVFC as soon as possible so the new banking information can be retrieved. This is vital to ensure proper and timely deposit of funds.
When funds are required by your organization, you will need to complete the EPA Payment Request Form EPA Form 190-F-04-001 Payment Request for Grants/Cooperative Agreements (PDF) (1 pg, 40K, about PDF )
Unique EPA programs, or those recipients permitted by LVFC (by exception only), may use SF270 or SF271 to request payment.
EFT recipients not required to register with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR):
- Must have a currently affirmed/active grant with the EPA.
- Are required to have their organization's banking data on file with the Las Vegas Finance Center (LVFC). This is done by completing form SF3881 – ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form (PDF) (2pp, 70K, about PDF ) and faxing this document to the LVFC at (702)-798-2423.
- Must be issued an EFT number by the LVFC.
- Must complete the EPA payment request form EPA form 190-F-04-001 (PDF) (1 pp, 28K, about PDF ) and fax the document to LVFC at (702)-798-2423. Unique EPA programs, or those recipients permitted by LVFC (by exception only), may use SF270 or SF271 to request payment.
- For further information, please read the EFT Recipients' Manual (PDF) (5 pp, 108K, about PDF ) .
The LVFC will review each request. When the request is approved for payment, EPA will electronically transfer the funds through the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve for credit to the recipient's account at their designated financial institution within 3 to 5 business days following receipt and approval of the request. If the entire request or a portion of the request is rejected, the recipient will be notified by the LVFC no later than 1 workday following receipt of the request.
Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) is a safe and simple method of receiving grant payments.
- Creating, implementing and tracking new reuse performance measures, such as the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Government Performance and Results Act measure, that measure the Agency's progress in making sites ready for their anticipated future use.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5500-N-01]
Notice of HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
Policy Requirements and General Section to
HUD’s FY2011 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of HUD’s FY2011 NOFA Policy Requirements and General Section to HUD’s FY2011 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs (notice).
SUMMARY: This notice provides prospective applicants for HUD’s competitive funding with the opportunity to become familiar with the General Section of HUD’s FY2011 NOFAs, in advance of publication of any FY2011 NOFAs. It also describes HUD’s policy priorities based on its Strategic Plan for FY2010-2015, as well as submission requirements for FY2011.
HUD’s Policy Priorities
In FY2010, HUD published its Strategic Plan for FY2010-2015, which defined a new set of policy and organizational priorities for the Department. The plan provides the direction and focus of HUD in achieving its mission: create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all. It proposes to accomplish this through five core goals, to:
1. Strengthen the Nation’s Housing Market to Bolster the Economy and Protect Consumers
2. Meet the Need for Quality Affordable Rental Homes
3. Utilize Housing as a Platform for Improving Quality of Life
4. Build Inclusive and Sustainable Communities Free from Discrimination
5. Transform the Way HUD Does Business
For FY2011 HUD is retaining the same focus and policies for its NOFAs. More information on HUD’s Strategic Plan for FY2010-2015 is provided in Section I.B. and C.
In FY2011 HUD is seeking grant applications for its competitive programs that will further the achievement of HUD’s Strategic Plan goals and policy priorities. Below is the list of the cross-cutting policy priorities for FY2011. Each program NOFA will identify the policy priorities most applicable to the program. In selecting the policy priorities to be addressed, the program NOFA will also include the point value assigned to each policy priority listed.
HUD’s FY2011 Policy Priorities are:Submission Information
Applicants are advised to become familiar with the requirements of this General Section
and the following submission requirements:
The General Section and Program Sections comprise the NOFA instructions. Applicants
are also advised to provide copies of the General Section to all persons that will be
working on the application.
HUD requires that applicants apply electronically via Grants.gov, which requires advance
registration and annual updates. See Section IV. of this notice for more information.
However, please note that the Continuum of Care application is submitted through the
HUD eSNAPS system, not Grants.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on HUD’s FY2011
Policy Requirements and General Section, contact the Office of Departmental Grants
Management and Oversight, Office of Administration, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 3156, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone number
202-708-0667. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may
access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To help applicants with electronic application
registration and submission, HUD advises applicants to use the help features on the Dun and
Bradstreet (D&B), Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and Grants.gov sites. These sites all
have User Guides and Frequently Asked Questions which are updated on an ongoing basis.
HUD believes that early publication of the General Section is beneficial to prospective applicants
by providing advance notice of the Department’s policy orientation for FY2011 including
strategic goals, policy priorities, threshold requirements and other requirements applicable to
almost every individual NOFA published by the Department. The General Section and Program
Sections together comprise the entirety of the NOFA instructions.
HUD hopes that the information in this General Section is helpful to you.
Executive Order 13279, “Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations.” HUD is committed to full implementation of Executive Order 13279. The Executive Order established fundamental principles and policymaking criteria to guide federal agencies in formulating and developing policies that have implications for faith-based and community organizations, to ensure the equal protection for these organizations in social service programs receiving federal financial assistance. Consistent with this order, HUD has reviewed all departmental policies and regulations that have implications for faith-based and community organizations and has established a policy to provide full and equal access to grassroots faith based and other community organizations in HUD program implementation. HUD revised its program regulations in 2003 and 2004 to remove the barriers to participation by faith-based organizations in HUD funding programs (68 FR 56396, September 30, 2003; 69 FR 41712, July 9, 2004; and 69 FR 62164, October 22, 2004).
h. Real Property Acquisition and Relocation. Except as otherwise provided by federal statute, HUD-assisted programs or projects are subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act or URA) (42 U.S.C. 4601), and the governmentwide implementing regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation at 49 CFR part 24. The Uniform Act’s protections and assistance apply to acquisitions of real property and displacements resulting from the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federal or federally assisted programs or projects. With certain limited exceptions, real property acquisitions for a HUD-assisted program or project must comply with 49 CFR part 24, subpart B. To be exempt from the URA’s acquisition policies, real property acquisitions conducted without the threat or use of eminent domain, commonly referred to as ―voluntary acquisitions,‖ must satisfy the applicable requirements of 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1) through (5). Evidence of compliance with these requirements must be maintained by the recipient. The URA's relocation requirements remain applicable to any tenant who is displaced by an acquisition that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1) through (5).
The relocation requirements of the Uniform Act, and its implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, cover any person who moves permanently from real property or moves personal property from real property as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a program or project receiving HUD assistance. While there are no statutory provisions for ―temporary relocation‖ under the URA, the URA regulations recognize that there are circumstances where a person will not be permanently displaced but may need to be moved from a project for a short period of time. Appendix A of the URA regulation (49 CFR 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D)) explains that any tenant who has been temporarily relocated for a period beyond one year must be contacted by the displacing agency and offered URA relocation assistance. Some HUD program regulations provide additional protections for temporarily relocated tenants. For example, 24 CFR 583.310(f)(1) provides guidance on temporary relocation for the Supportive Housing Program for the homeless. Before planning their project, applicants should review the regulations for the programs for which they are applying. Generally, the URA does not apply to displacements resulting from the demolition or disposition of public housing covered by Section 18 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
Additional information and resources pertaining to real property acquisition and relocation for HUD-funded programs and projects are available on HUD’s Real Estate Acquisition and Relocation website at http://www.hud.gov/relocation. The website contains applicable laws and regulations, policy and guidance, publications, training resources, and a listing of HUD contacts to answer questions or otherwise provide assistance.
i. Conducting Business in Accordance with Core Values and Ethical Standards/Code of Conduct. Applicants subject to 24 CFR parts 84 or 85 (most nonprofit organizations and state, local, and Indian tribal governments or government agencies or instrumentalities that receive federal awards of financial assistance) are required to develop and maintain a written code of conduct (see 24 CFR 84.42 and 85.36(b)(3)). Consistent with regulations governing specific programs, your code of conduct must prohibit real and apparent conflicts of interest that may arise among officers, employees, or agents; prohibit the solicitation and acceptance of gifts or gratuities by your officers, employees, or agents for their personal benefit in excess of minimal value; and outline administrative and disciplinary actions available to remedy violations of such standards. Before entering into an agreement with HUD, an applicant awarded assistance under a HUD program NOFA issued in FY2011 will be required to submit a copy of its code of conduct and describe the methods it will use to ensure that all officers, employees, and agents of its organization are aware of its code of conduct. The code of conduct must be dated and signed by the Executive Director, or Chair of the governing body of the organization.
An applicant is prohibited from receiving an award of funds from HUD if it fails to meet this requirement for a code of conduct. An applicant that previously submitted an application and included a copy of its code of conduct will not be required to submit another copy if the applicant is listed on HUD’s website at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/conduct and if the information is still accurate. An applicant not listed on the website must submit a copy of its code of conduct with its FY2011 application for assistance. An applicant must also include a copy of its code of conduct if the information listed on the above website has changed (e.g., the person who submitted the previous application is no longer the authorized organization representative, the organization has changed its legal name or merged with another organization, or the address of the organization has changed, etc.). Any applicant that needs to submit its code of conduct to HUD via facsimile using the form HUD96011, ―Facsimile Transmittal‖ (―Third Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal‖ on Grants.gov) may do so at the time of application submission. This form is available as part of your application package downloaded from Grants.gov. When using the facsimile transmittal form, please type the requested information. Use the form HUD96011 as the cover page for the submission and include the following header in the top line of the form under Name of Document Being Requested: ―Code of Conduct for (insert your organization’s name, city, and state).‖ Fax the information to HUD’s toll-free number at 800-HUD-1010. If you cannot access the 800 number or have problems, you may use 215-825-8798 (this is not a toll-free number). If you use the wrong fax number, your fax will not be entered as part of HUD’s FY2011 competition database. HUD cannot match FY2011 faxes to FY2011 applications if the wrong fax number is used. If the wrong fax number is used, your application will be reviewed without faxed information. Continuum of Care applicants should follow the directions in the Continuum of Care program NOFA for submission of Codes of Conduct.k. Procurement of Recovered Materials. State agencies and agencies of a political subdivision of a state that are using assistance under a HUD program NOFA for procurement, and any person contracting with such an agency with respect to work performed under an assisted contract, must comply with the requirements of Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
In accordance with Section 6002, these agencies and persons must procure items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the quantity acquired in the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; must procure solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and must have established an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines.
l. Participation in HUD-Sponsored Program Evaluation. As a condition of the receipt of financial assistance under a HUD program NOFA, all successful applicants will be required to cooperate with all HUD staff or contractors who perform HUD-funded research or evaluation studies.
m. Salary Limitation for Consultants. Unless otherwise provided in the program NOFA, FY2011 funds may not be used to pay or to provide reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant at a rate more than the equivalent of General Schedule 15, Step 10, base rate plus locality pay in accordance with Office of Personnel Management pay scales posted at http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/indexGS.asp
n. OMB Circulars and Governmentwide Regulations Applicable to Financial Assistance Programs. Certain OMB Circulars (2 CFR part 225) also apply to HUD program NOFAs. The policies, guidance, and requirements of OMB Circulars A-87 (Cost Principles Applicable to Grants, Contracts and Other Agreements with State and Local Governments), A-21 (Cost Principles for Education Institutions), A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations), A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations), and the regulations at 24 CFR part 84 (Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit Organizations), and 24 CFR part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments) may apply to the award, acceptance, and use of assistance under the individual program NOFAs, and to the remedies for noncompliance, except when inconsistent with the provisions of applicable federal statutes or regulations, or the provisions of this notice. Compliance with additional OMB circulars or governmentwide regulations may be specified for a particular program in the applicable Program Section NOFA. Copies of the OMB circulars may be obtained from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html, or from the Executive Office of the President Publications, New Executive Office Building, Room 2200, Washington, DC 20503; telephone number 202-395-3080 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number by dialing 800-877-8339 (toll-free TTY Federal Information Relay Service).Use of funds for mass transit, railroad, airport, seaport, or highway projects, as well as utility projects which benefit or serve the general public (including energy-related, communication-related, water-related, and wastewater-related infrastructure), other structures designated for use by the general public or which have other common-carrier or public-utility functions that serve the general public and are subject to regulation and oversight by the government, and projects for the removal of an immediate threat to public health and safety or brownfields, as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Pub. L. 107-118), shall be considered a public use for purposes of Section 409.
11. Natural Materials and Systems
Program Description: The goals of this multidisciplinary program are to study, use, mimic, or alter how living systems accomplish their natural functions. Nature has used evolution to build materials and sensors that outperform current sensors (for example, a spider’s haircells can detect air flow at low levels even in a noisy background). This program not only wants to mimic existing natural sensory systems, but also add existing capabilities to these organisms for more precise control over their material production. The research will encompass four general areas: sensory mimics, natural materials, natural/synthetic interfaces, and physical mechanisms of natural systems under environmental distress.
Sensory mimetic research attempts to mimic novel sensors that organisms use in their daily lives, and to learn engineering processes and mechanisms for control of those systems. This program also focuses on natural chromophores and photoluminescent materials found in microbial and protein-based systems as well as the mimicking of sensor denial systems, such as active and passive camouflage developed in certain organisms addressing predator-prey issues.
Basic Research Objectives: The natural materials area is focused on synthesis of novel materials and nanostructures using organisms as material factories. The program also focuses on understanding the structure and properties of the synthetic materials. The use of extremophiles is added to address the development of materials not accessible due to environmental extremes. We are also interested in organisms that disrupt or deny a material’s function or existence in some way.
The natural/synthetic interfaces area is focused on the fundamental science at the biotic and abiotic interface. The nanotechnology and mesotechnology sub-efforts are focused on surface structure and new architectures using nature’s idea of directed assembly at the nanoscale to mesoscale to create desired effects, such as quantum electronic or three dimensional power structures. The use of these structures is in the design of patterned and templated surfaces, new catalysts, and natural materials based-optics/electronics (biophotonics).
The “physical mechanisms of natural systems under environmental distress” area is focused on discovering and understanding basic natural mechanisms used by organisms that could be used to either harden or repair soft material-based devices. This will enable the Air Force to employ biological systems with optimum performance and extended lifetimes. As protein and nucleic acid molecules are increasingly used as catalysts, sensors, and as materials, it will be necessary to understand how we can utilize these molecules in extreme environments, with the ability to regulate the desired function as conditions change, and to store the device for prolonged periods of time. Areas of interest include: the mechanisms for survival and protein stability in extremophilic archaea, fundamental studies of bacterial sporulation, and enzymatic engineering for faster catalysis in materials identification or degradation.
Dr. Hugh C. De Long AFOSR/RSL (703) 696-7722
DSN 426-7722 FAX (703) 696-7360
E-mail: hugh.delong@afosr.af.mil12. Bioenergy
Program Description: This program aims to understand and improve the facility of photosynthetic microbes to produce biofuels (specifically, molecular hydrogen and algal lipids) for use in fuel cells and air breathing engines, and also to enhance the power density of enzymatic and microbial biofuel cells and the range of complex, impure or mixed natural substrates that the biofuel cells can oxidize and convert to electricity. The capacity to supply renewable hydrogen and high energy-dense hydrocarbons on a macro-scale using engineered photobiological systems will enable the military to power tanks, planes and ships on renewable energy, at a predictable cost basis and independent of foreign energy markets. On the other hand, microorganisms and enzymatic processes that can be bioengineered to produce electricity on a micro-scale using readily available complex or mixed biofuels could serve as portable compact power sources for such low-powered devices as remote sensors or future miniature unmanned air and land vehicles.
Basic Research Objectives: This program supports research that explores the biochemical and molecular processes found in certain oxygenic phototrophs, such as microaglae and cyanobacteria, which enable them to generate molecular hydrogen and lipid biofuels when supplied with only water, carbon dioxide and light. Knowledge of the physiological, biochemical and genetic factors involved in limiting and augmenting production of these biofuels will be used to bioengineer photosynthetic organisms whose generation of hydrogen and lipid biofuels will be both highly efficient and controllable. Basic research may include areas such as photosynthetic biochemistry, hydrogenase enzymology, genetic and metabolic engineering, systems biology, biocatalysis, microbial physiology and ecology, and lipid biosynthesis. In addition, some funds may be available to explore novel, fundamental biomimetic approaches in artificial photosynthesis for the generation specifically of high energy-dense solar fuels, such as straight- and branched-chain hydrocarbons. Progress in these areas is viewed as essential in developing the biotechnology needed to generate renewable, carbon-neutral supplies of lipid-derived jet fuels and fuel-cell hydrogen.
This program also supports research to enable the development of biofuel cells, both microbial and enzymatic, that can convert complex and impure fuel sources into electrical energy at sufficiently high power densities to be useful in portable devices. The idea is that biofuel cells will sustain their power by utilizing a wide range of fuel sources from the environment, such as ambient carbohydrates and macromolecules. Development of self-sustaining microbial or enzymatic biofuel cells will require understanding certain basic fundamental issues, including optimizing current production under variable conditions, biological mechanical energy storage, electron and proton transfer reactions and kinetics between enzymes/microbes and the electrode surface, theoretical modeling of mass transport in model biofuel cells, novel electrode designs, and enzyme engineering for faster catalysis.
Dr. Walter Kozumbo, AFOSR/RSL (703) 696-7720
DSN 426-7720 FAX (703) 696-7360
E-mail: walter.kozumbo@afosr.af.milOrganization
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) programs conduct activities in partnership with the private sector, state and local government, DOE national laboratories, and universities.
- EERE Organization Chart
- Clean Energy for America's Future : An overview of EERE's programs and activities.
- Clean Energy for America's Future en Español
EERE is organized around 10 energy programs:
EERE Offices
The offices support the cross-cutting and corporate-level activities within EERE. They include:
- Business Administration
- Commercialization and Deployment
- Field Operations
- Golden Field Office
- International
- Planning, Budget and Analysis
- Sustainability Performance Office
National Laboratories
Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
The Office of EERE works with several of the U.S. Department of Energy's national laboratories in order to support and further its mission. Learn more about all of the laboratories that support EERE.
Mission
BER advances world-class biological and environmental research programs and scientific user facilities to support DOE's energy, environment, and basic research missions.
Mission priorities:
- Develop biofuels as a major secure national energy resource
- Understand relationships between climate change and Earth's ecosystems, and assess options for carbon sequestration
- Predict fate and transport of subsurface contaminants
- Develop new tools to explore the interface of biological and physical sciences
Organizational Structure
- Biological Systems Science Division (BSSD) - supports fundamental research and technology development to achieve a predictive, systems-level understanding of complex biological systems to advance DOE missions in energy, climate, and environment.
- Climate and Environmental Sciences Division (CESD) - supports fundamental research to achieve a predictive, systems-level understanding of climate change, as well as subsurface contaminant fate and transport, to advance DOE missions in energy, climate, and environment.
Research Activities
Since initiating the Human Genome Project in 1986, BER has spearheaded the development of modern genomics-based systems biology and played a major role in seeding and fostering the contemporary biotechnology revolution, while at the same time supporting forefront research on the impacts of energy production and use on climate change. BER's research program, closely aligned with DOE mission goals, aims at understanding complex biological and environmental systems across many spatial and temporal scales, from the sub-micron to the global, from individual molecules to ecosystems, from nanoseconds to millennia, to develop predictive knowledge relevant to DOE mission challenges. Two areas vital to the Nation's energy security and environmental future lie at the core of the BER research agenda: developing cost-effective cellulosic biofuels and improving our ability to understand, predict, and mitigate the impacts of energy production and use on climate change.
Last modified: 4/4/2011 10:29:59 AMBiological Systems Science Division (BSSD)
The Biological Systems Science Division manages a diverse portfolio of fundamental research and technology development to achieve a predictive, systems-level understanding of complex biological systems to advance DOE missions in energy, climate, and environment. The division was formed from the merger of the formerly separate Life Sciences Division and the Medical Sciences Division. Specific research areas include:
Genomic Science Research
- Genomic Science Research - to underpin the development of biotechnology solutions for energy, the environment, and carbon sequestration. This program will develop genome-scale technologies needed to understand the function of microbial and plant systems, from proteomics to metabolomics to regulatory networks to ecogenomics. The Genomic Science goal is to develop the computational capabilities and systems needed to predictively design and model complex biological systems.
- DOE Bioenergy Research Centers - to accelerate genomics-based systems biology research to achieve the transformational breakthroughs in basic science needed for the development of cost-effective technologies to make production of next-generation biofuels from lignocellulose, or plant fiber, commercially viable on a national scale.
- Radiochemistry and Instrumentation: supports fundamental research in radiochemistry and radiotracer development activities that include development of new methodologies for real-time, high-resolution imaging of dynamic biological processes in energy- and environment-relevant contexts.
- Low Dose Radiation Research - to understand and characterize the risks to human health from exposures to low levels of radiation.
- Artificial Retina - utilizes the resources of the national laboratories in material sciences, engineering, microfabrication, and microengineering to develop unique neuroprostheses and continue development of an artificial retina to restore sight to the blind.
- Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) - supports Office of Science interests in bioenergy, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology, including communication of the societal implications arising from these programs.
- DOE Human Subjects Protection Program - to ensure compliance with Federal regulations and DOE Orders to protect human subjects. All research conducted at DOE, supported with DOE funds, or performed by DOE employees must comply.
Scientific User Facilities
For additional information about these specific programs, please contact an appropriate staff member . Last modified: 4/14/2011 1:54:01 PM
- Structural Biology - to develop and support DOE national user facilities for use in fundamental structural biology.
- DOE Joint Genome Institute to advance genomics in support of the DOE missions in energy, climate, and environment.
The mission of the JGI is to provide genome sequencing, genome data acquisition, and genome analysis in support of the DOE mission needs in bioenergy, carbon cycling and biosequestration, and environmental remediation and stabilization.
Program Description
The DOE-JGI was created in 1997 to carry out accurate, high throughput sequencing of human DNA in support of DOE's role in the Human Genome Project (HGP). With the completion of the HGP, the JGI sequencing capacity was refocused on the genomes of the microbes, microbial communities (metagenomes) and other organisms (fungi, plants) important to the DOE mission. Since 2000, the JGI has served as a Scientific User Facility, inviting and responding to requests from the external scientific community for sequencing of microbial, plant, and other (non-pathogen) targets. In all cases, the aim of the JGI is to provide to the national and international scientific community both the genome-derived "parts lists" as well as high quality computational analyses that support further discovery.
Solicitations
The DOE-JGI publishes an annual Community Sequencing Program solicitation for sequencing targets (see: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/CSP/index.html ). This program is presently open to letters of intent until March 15, 2010. NOTE: The JGI does NOT provide funding support for sequencing or other research efforts. The Community Sequencing Program (CSP) provides the scientific community at large with access to high-throughput sequencing of significant scale at the DOE-JGI for projects of relevance to DOE missions. Sequencing projects are chosen based on scientific merit--judged through independent peer review--and relevance to issues in global carbon cycling, energy production, biogeochemistry and low dose radiation responses. Criteria for participation in this program, the review process, and interactions between JGI and participants are outlined at: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/CSP/index.html ). Through this program, the Department of Energy aims to advance sequence-based scientific research from a broad range of disciplines. Three items to note:
- Proposals for bacterial and archaeal isolates, to be submitted as brief white papers will be accepted on a continuous basis, and will be reviewed every three months (typically early in February, May, August, and November of each year).
- Proposals that utilize JGI's expanding capacity for new technology sequencing are encouraged. This includes large-scale metagenome sequencing, transcript profiling, and resequencing of organisms for which reference genomes currently exist.
- Proposals requesting sequencing of eukaryotic genomes will be considered, but must include demonstration of genome size and polymorphism rate and should be supported by a significant user community.
Why the Program's Research is Important
The genome sequence of any organism, from a virus to an entire multi-species community, provides a catalogue of the component "working parts" The knowledge of that "parts list" is a fundamental starting point for a powerful array of biological investigations to describe and predict cellular function. Comparative genome and community genome (metagenome) studies also contribute towards understanding fundamental principles of the control circuits regulating gene expression and action, and how external signals (environmental, hormonal, chemical, etc.) influence gene activities.
Data Sharing Policy
The DOE-JGI data release policy is accessible at: http://my.jgi.doe.gov/general/datarelease.html
Sequencing of submitted projects by the program is contingent on adherence to this data sharing policy. It is also expected that organisms sequenced by the JGI will be deposited in public repositories to ensure public access to sequenced strains.
More Information about the Program and Its Accomplishments
Program Manager
Dan Drell, Ph.D.
Biological Systems Science Division, SC-23.2
U.S. Department of Energy, GTN Bldg.
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585-1290
Phone: (301) 903-4742
Fax: (301) 903-0567
Email: daniel.drell@science.doe.govSequencing the Smallest Known Life
In the depths
of a former copper
mine in
Northern
California dwell
what may be the
smallest, most
stripped-down
forms of life ever
discovered. As reported in the April 26,
2010 issue of Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, the microbes, members
of the domain of one-celled creatures
called Archaea, are smaller than all other
known microorganisms. The only potential
exception is a microbe that can survive
solely as a parasite attached to the outside
of other cells.
The copper mine microbes are about as
large as the largest viruses, which can
replicate only in living organisms but are
not considered to be living. Their genomes,
sequenced at the DOE JGI, are among the
smallest ever reported at only a million
base pairs. Researchers led by DOE JGI
collaborator Jill Banfield named them
ARMAN for archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic
nanoorganisms.
“ARMAN are among the smallest
microbes we know of that, if not free-living,
are at least not permanently obliged to be
a parasite or symbiont,” noted co-author
Luis R. Comolli, a microscopist at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL).
Banfield’s group first described the ARMAN
microbes four years ago, after identifying
the organisms in acidic pools in the
Richmond Mine in Iron Mountain, Calif.
The team’s continued analysis has
revealed amazing organization within the
mine drainage biofilm communities that
grow on solutions with the acidity of battery
acid. The new data will help the researchers
further explore the community of organisms
in the mine and determine how they are
able to live in such harsh conditions
National Integrated Water Quality Program
National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of Commerce
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
EPA's fiscal 2005 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification document stated that the Agency coordinates with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on efforts to ensure that National Pollutant ... more
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Participant in the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
Participant in the Underground Injection Control Program
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Phase II Storm Water Regulations (5)
Regulatory Enforcement Program
Public Works and Development Facilities Program
Rangeland Management
Riparian Management
Rural Utilities Service - Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
Safe Drinking Water Program
Soil, Water, Air Management
Stormwater Management Program
Surveillance for Waterborne - Disease Outbreaks
The Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program
Uranium Recovery Program
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Quality and Management
Water Quality Program/Education, Technical, and Financial Assistance
Water Quality/Research, Development, Information (5,6)
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Watershed Research Program
Wetland Reserve Program
Phase II Storm Water Regulations (5)
Regulatory Enforcement Program
Public Works and Development Facilities Program
Rangeland Management
Riparian Management
Rural Utilities Service - Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
Safe Drinking Water Program
Soil, Water, Air Management
Stormwater Management Program
General Services Administration
Water Infrastructure: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
The objective of this initiative is to import a basic understanding of the causes of stormwater pollution and the types of activities that require stormwater permits, as well as to provide an invaluable reference tool fo... more Defense-Energy Team Leads National Effort
By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press ServiceWASHINGTON, April 26, 2011 – A partnership the Defense and Energy departments formed last year to conserve energy in the military is the perfect union to lead the nation in conservation, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said at the White House Energy Security Forum today.
“The key to this partnership is focusing [the Energy Department's] unique knowledge on meeting defense requirements,” Lynn said. “By taking technologies from labs to the battlefield, the Department of Energy can enroll its scientific ingenuity in the service of our nation's most important national mission: national security.”
Additionally, Lynn said, the departments' collaboration can improve the operational effectiveness of the armed forces and serve as a catalyst for the civilian world. “By serving as a sophisticated first user and early customer for innovative energy technologies,” he said, “the military can jump-start their broader commercial adoption, just as we have done with jet engines, high-performance computing and the Internet.”
Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel B. Poneman agreed.
“Through our national laboratory system, the [Energy] department brings tremendous scientific expertise to bear across a whole portfolio of national energy and scientific priorities,” he said. “Coupled with the scale of the Defense Department's operations and its potential to act as a test bed for innovative technologies, this partnership is a crucial vehicle to strengthen our national security and to build a clean energy economy for America.”
Forum speakers noted the importance President Barack Obama has placed on energy conservation, but added that the issue goes back at least as far as the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, who acknowledged that American reliance on foreign oil raises national security risks. NATO's ongoing military operations in Libya and the spike of oil prices due to political unrest in the Middle East is just the latest example of the problem, Poneman said.
Under the departments' agreement, a committee of Defense and Energy leaders will steer investments into conservation-related technologies for U.S.-based installations and battlefield operations, Lynn said. Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, and Sharon E. Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs, are leading those efforts and took part in the forum.
Highlights
Copper is a naturally occurring element.
The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has developed recommended dietary allowances (RDAs) of 340 micrograms (µg) of copper per day for children aged 1-3 years, 440 µg/day for children aged 4-8 years, 700 µg/day for children aged 9-13 years, 890 µg/day for children aged 14-18 years, and 900 µg/day for adults. This provides enough copper to maintain health. Copper has been found in at least 906 of the 1,647 current or former NPL sites.
Zinc is a naturally occurring element. Zinc has been found in at least 985 of the 1,662 current or former NPL sites.
Zinc is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust. It is found in air, soil, and water, and is present in all foods. Pure zinc is a bluish-white shiny metal.
Zinc has many commercial uses as coatings to prevent rust, in dry cell batteries, and mixed with other metals to make alloys like brass, and bronze. A zinc and copper alloy is used to make pennies in the United States.
Zinc combines with other elements to form zinc compounds. Common zinc compounds include zinc chloride, zinc oxide, zinc sulfate, and zinc sulfide. Zinc compounds are widely used in industry to make paint, rubber, dyes, wood preservatives, and ointments.
Zinc is also a trace mineral nutrient and as such, small amounts of zinc are needed in all animals.The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimates an RDA for zinc of 11 mg/day (men). Eleven mg/day is the same as 0.16 mg per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day for an average adult male (70 kg). An RDA of 8 mg/day, or 0.13 mg per kg of body weight for an average adult female (60 kg), was established for women because they usually weigh less than men. Lower zinc intake was recommended for infants (2-3 mg/day) and children (5-9 mg/day) because of their lower average body weights. The RDA provides a level of adequate nutritional status for most of the population. Extra dietary levels of zinc are recommended for women during pregnancy and lactation. An RDA of 11-12 mg/day was set for pregnant women. Women who nurse their babies need 12-13 mg/day.
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2344 Prev | Next
§ 2344. Review of orders; time; notice; contents of petition; service
How Current is This? On the entry of a final order reviewable under this chapter, the agency shall promptly give notice thereof by service or publication in accordance with its rules. Any party aggrieved by the final order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies. The action shall be against the United States. The petition shall contain a concise statement of— (1) the nature of the proceedings as to which review is sought; (2) the facts on which venue is based; (3) the grounds on which relief is sought; and (4) the relief prayed. The petitioner shall attach to the petition, as exhibits, copies of the order, report, or decision of the agency. The clerk shall serve a true copy of the petition on the agency and on the Attorney General by registered mail, with request for a return receipt.
hydropower not considered renewable energy in California
by Bob Morris Tue, Apr 26th 2011The new California law mandating 33% renewable energy by 2020 from all California utilities has troubling, if not downright bizarre aspects, some of which will definitely raise the cost of electricity substantially. Yet, this doesn't need to happen.
One of the most reliable and inexpensive forms of renewable energy, large hydropower, does not qualify as renewable under the law. In 2009 , 11.6% of California power came from renewable sources, while 9.2% came from large hydropower. Yet for inexplicable reasons, large hydro does not count as renewable energy in California (even as small hydro does!). California, in its laudable and admirable attempt to switch to renewable energy, has somehow managed to decree that its biggest supplier of renewable energy does not qualify as being renewable.
It's difficult to find any solid information on why this decision was made. Some opine that hydropower is variable because water is sometimes scarce; hence it doesn't count as renewable. But the same can be said for solar and wind power too. Those of us with suspicious minds might wonder if lobbyists for solar and wind had more than a little say in the writing of the law and if there is a hidden agenda against big hydro. This decision is beyond curious as it clearly benefits the solar and wind power industries to the exclusion of others. And that's detrimental to California, to taxpayers, and to everyone who pays a power bill.
What's even more disappointing is that California's push to utilize renewable energy will be accomplished in major part by importing renewable energy from other states. While the law was touted as a job creation machine for California, it's difficult to see how many jobs will be created by using clean energy produced elsewhere. This seems more of the smoke and mirrors that Sacramento watchers are all too used to.
It gets worse, and much more convoluted. California's refusal to rightfully categorized large hydro as renewable energy will have severely unpleasant ramifications as the cost of electricity will unquestionably rise more than it needed to. For example, California gets power from the Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest, which is federal and doesn't have to comply with state laws. Bonneville has both hydro and wind power and due to the immense snowpack, has told wind farms they will have to shut down periodically this year to allow hydropower to use up some of that water. But this means California cannot use Bonneville power when it is hydro only, and thus must find non-hydro renewable energy elsewhere, presumably at a higher cost.
It is a given that wind and solar developers will be aware of California's self-imposed predicament and will price their power accordingly. The simplest, most obvious, and greenest solution to this is for California to immediately re-classify large hydro as renewable energy, something which hydropower clearly already is.
The Environmental Protection Agency has released its final Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
In the assessment, agency staffers determined that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson would be justified in either keeping the current standard or tightening it to a level that would be essentially twice as stringent for much of rural America. The final policy assessment states the two standards are essentially equivalent in terms of health protection.
According to Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the good news is the policy assessment includes options rather than a stand-alone recommendation. The bad news is EPA can still choose to regulate dust in a way that would put a stranglehold on rural America. Thies says finalizing a rule that would result in heavy fines for creating dust by simply driving down a dirt road or herding cattle is unacceptable.
"Dust is a part of life in rural America. Cattle ranchers work hard to provide safe and nutritious food for this country and abroad," Thies said. "Finalizing a rule that would result in heavy fines for creating dust by simply driving down a dirt road or herding cattle is unacceptable. If EPA Administrator Jackson is serious when she says EPA is not working against agriculture, she needs to prove it. We urge EPA Administrator Jackson to keep the current standard."
Administrator Jackson has complained recently about so-called 'myths and misconceptions' about her intentions regarding this issue. NCBA urges her to put minds at ease by declaring unequivocally that EPA's actions will not result in a more restrictive regulation of dust in rural America. Also, Thies says this is the administrator's opportunity to reduce the mounting pile of burdensome and unnecessary regulations on agriculture.
U.S. Representative Kristi Noem, R-S.D., introduced, with bipartisan support, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 that would block dust regulation by EPA in rural areas where state dust laws are in effect.
"We support Congresswoman Noem and the other members of Congress who have risen in support of farmers and ranchers against burdensome and scientifically unfounded regulations," said Thies.
EPA is expected to issue a proposed rule to regulate dust in August 2011.
EPA releases its Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan in accordance with Executive Order 13514.
- Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
- Executive Order (EO) 13423
- Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
- EO 13514
Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings
The Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings ( Guiding Principles ), which incorporate requirements from EISA, require agencies to employ design and construction strategies that reduce stormwater runoff, polluted site water runoff, and the use of potable water for irrigation. They promote the use of decentralized stormwater management design strategies to maintain or restore site hydrology to pre-development conditions and promote water-efficient landscaping and irrigation strategies.
The Guiding Principles , last revised on December 1, 2008, contain two sets of principles: one for new construction and major renovation of buildings, the other for existing buildings. The new building principles focus primarily on design and construction, while the existing building principles emphasize sustainable operations, maintenance, and management.
Guiding Principle III, Protect and Conserve Water, is present in both the new construction and major renovations set of Guiding Principles and the existing buildings set of Guiding Principles , and in both sets it contains the following language regarding stormwater management:
"Employ design and construction strategies that reduce storm water runoff and discharges of polluted water offsite. Per EISA Section 438, to the maximum extent technically feasible, maintain or restore the predevelopment hydrology of the site with regard to temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow using site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies."
About the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive
The Office is responsible for promoting sustainability and environmental stewardship throughout Federal government operations. Created by Executive Order in 1993, the Office is housed at the President's Council on Environmental Quality, is administered by EPA, and stewards the interagency Steering Committee on Federal Sustainability.READ MORE...
About the Federal Environmental Executive
Michelle Moore is the Obama Administration's Federal Environmental Executive, and is responsible for promoting sustainability and environmental stewardship throughout the federal government's operations.READ MORE...
Smart Communities Network
Site Index
- HOME
- Welcome
- Español
- Contact Us
- E-mail Mailing List
- Site Search
- Sustainability Forums
- Conferences/Meetings
- Funding Opportunities
- Sustainable Development Toolkit
- Top Sustainable Web Sites
- Success Stories
- Overview of Sustainable Development
• Introduction
• Definitions/Principles
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Education
• Other Resources
- Green Buildings
• Introduction
• Building Principles
• Building Programs
• Rating Systems
• U.S. Building Efforts
• Affordable Housing
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Green Development
• Introduction
• Benefits & Basic Elements
• Guiding Principles
• Programs / Rating Systems
• Financing
• Tools
• Success Stories
• Codes / Ordinances
• Articles / Publications
• Other Resources
- Land Use Planning
• Introduction
• Key Principles
• Strategies
• Civic Participation
• Tools
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Measuring Progress
• Introduction
• What Are Indicators
• Indicators in Action
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Disaster Planning
• Introduction
• Key Principles
• Case Studies
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Municipal Energy
• Introduction
• Key Principles
• Education
• Financing
• Federal Resources
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Transportation
• Introduction
• Key Principles
• Public Involvement
• Role of Information
• Tools
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Sustainable Business
• Tools
• Introduction
• Key Principles
• Industrial Ecology
• Assistance Program
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Financing
• Introduction
• Financial Strategies
• Grants
• Energy
• Green Buildings
• Real Estate
• Agriculture
• Brownfields
• Business/Industry
• Community Development
• Pollution Prevention
• Environmental Protection
• Transportation
- Rural Issues
• Introduction
• Agriculture
• Community Development
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Resource Efficiency
- Air Quality
• Introduction
• Strategies
• Assistance Programs
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Water Efficiency
• Introduction
• Assistance Programs
• Pollution Prevention
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Educational Materials
• Other Resources
- Materials Efficiency
• Introduction
• Strategies
• Success Stories
• Codes/Ordinances
• Articles/Publications
• Education
• Other Resources
- Acknowledgements
- Disclaimer
######
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
The conference agreement provides $5,617,920,000 for research and related activities.
The conference agreement transfers $54,000,000 from NSF to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for icebreaking services to cover all anticipated operation and maintenance costs for fiscal year 2010. The conferees expect that in future years all operation and maintenance budget authority for these USCG icebreakers will be requested by the Department of Homeland Security.
Within the funds provided, the conferees direct NSF to maintain funding at the levels requested for the following activities:
Climate change
Cyber-enabled discovery and innovation
Science and engineering beyond Moore's law
Adaptive systems technology
Dynamics of water processes in the environment
National Radio Astronomy ObservatoryIn addition, the conferees support House direction on high-risk, high-reward basic research; funding for research on ocean acidification; support for 2,000 graduate research fellowships across all of NSF; climate change education; and funding of EPSCoR. Beyond these requirements, the conferees expect NSF to accommodate the reduction from the request based on its judgment of where funding will be used most effectively.
The conferees support the direction in the Senate report with respect to VORTEX2.
The conferees direct NSF to transfer $100,000 to the National Academy of Sciences as directed by the House .
Hydrology, terrestrial ecosystems and soils.—The conferees see the need for an appropriate mechanism to bring together the hydrology research community and better integrate the different types of data and observing systems and enhance support of hydrology modeling, and to institutionalize this mechanism. The conferees also see the need for an appropriate mechanism to bring together the terrestrial ecology and soils research communities. NSF is directed to report its recommendations on the need for and establishment of mechanisms in these two areas with the budget request for fiscal year 2011.
######
FY 2011 Request
Fundamental Nanoscale Phenomena and Processes
Nanomaterials
Nanoscale Devices & Systems
Instrumentation Research, Metrology, & Standards for Nanotech
Nanomanufacturing
Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition
Societal Dimensions: Environment Health and Safety (EHS)
Societal Dimensions: Education (EDUC)
Societal Dimensions: Ethical, Legal & Other Soc Issues (ELSI)
Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Just bag it.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
Today's environmental tip: Just bag it! Help protect the environment when you shop. Keep reusable bags on your car seat or near your door so they are easy to grab when you go. And you can even combine shopping bags - just tell the cashier that you don't need a bag, then put all your purchases together in one bag… just be sure to hang on to your receipts!
More information: http://www.epa.gov/osw/education/pubs/shopping.htm
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcastsen español: Ayude a proteger el medio ambiente cuando vaya de compras. Lleve bolsas reutilizables en su auto o cerca de la puerta de salida para que sean fáciles de llevar consigo. También puede combinar los artículos en una bolsa. Dígale a la cajera que no necesita varias bolsas y ponga los artículos comprados en una sola-ahora sí, debe conservar los recibos!
Más información: http://www.epa.gov/osw/education/pdfs/sp-shop.pdf
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htmWant 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
Today's environmental tip: Proper maintenance reduces waste! Keep your appliances in good working order and follow the manufacturer's suggestions for operation and maintenance. Shop for products with high consumer satisfaction and fewer breakdowns. If kept in good working order, your appliances should last a long time and not end up as waste before their time.
More information: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/catbook/tip4.htm
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcastsen español: ¡El mantenimiento adecuado reduce los desechos! Mantenga sus enseres en buen funcionamiento y siga las sugerencias del fabricante sobre la operación y mantenimiento. Busque comprar productos con niveles de alta satisfacción del consumidor y que no tengan problemas de averías. Si mantiene los enseres en buen funcionamiento, deben durar mucho tiempo y no terminar como desechos con el tiempo.
Más información: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/funfacts/indexsp.htm
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htmWant 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
Partners in Sustainability
Posted by Administrator Martha N. Johnson on April 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM EDTLast week I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from Seattle area businesses and discuss ways we can work together to strengthen our nations clean energy economy. With the General Service Administration's portfolio of nearly 10,000 federal buildings and influence over 400,000 federal vehicles we are uniquely positioned to move our government towards this goal. But we can't do this alone -- that's why GSA is working to facilitate conversations with private sector leaders that foster an exchange of ideas.
On my first stop in Seattle, I took part in a roundtable conversation with representatives from business, construction and design and academia to discuss the business case for green building. With GSA's 370 million square feet of facility space it is imperative for us to invest in innovative clean energy technologies that make our buildings more cost and energy efficient for the American taxpayer. Conversations like this roundtable allow GSA to work with the private sector and share best practices so we can make informed decisions on implementing innovative building technologies.
While in the Puget Sound area I also had the opportunity to speak to building managers, urban planners and local government officials at the Bellevue City Hall for a workshop on electric vehicle charging stations. I spoke with attendees who are leading remarkable initiatives to create and support infrastructure for plug-in vehicles. As part of our efforts to make the federal fleet more efficient, GSA will be launching an EV pilot program to purchase 100 plug-in electric vehicles. To make electric vehicles an integral part of our federal fleet we must take steps to ensure the necessary infrastructure exists, including charging stations. The workshop attendees I met with are ensuring we are on track to meet President Obama's goal of having one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
I'd like to thank my hosts in and around Seattle, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with our partners in sustainability.
Martha N. Johnson is the Administrator of the General Services AdministrationNational Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Funding Opportunities at NSF in FY 2011
( www.nsf.gov/nano )
For fiscal year 2011, the National Science Foundation budget request for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is approximately $401 million. All participating research and education directorates and the Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) accept proposals with an international component following a competitive selection process. The NSF contribution covers only expenses made by the U.S. universities for research and for international interactions such as workshops, visiting students and professors in U.S. and abroad.
The participating directorates are: Biological Sciences (BIO), Computer and Information Science & Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), and Education and Human Resources (EHR).
General information about NNI specific programs can be found on www.nsf.gov/nano , about NSF's core programs on http://www.nsf.gov/funding/research_edu_community.jsp , and about OISE programs on http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=OISE . The NSF award database including more than 5,000 awards contributing to nanoscale science and engineering can be accessed from www.nsf.gov/nano .
NSF supports nanoscale science and engineering in fiscal year 2011 in multiple ways:
• Competitive awards in existing (core) programs in the research and education directorates, i ncluding interdisciplinary team research proposals.
• The solicitation “Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond" ( NEB ) (NSF 10-614): http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10614/nsf10614.htm?org=NSF
• The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/
• Also, it is expected that most of the program solicitations competed in FY 2010 will continue in FY 2011. Such solicitations will be announced on this website at the time of publication.
• International supplements. Awards made in previous fiscal years for individual investigators, groups, centers, and user facilities can be supplemented by the programs.
Research and education areas in nanoscale science and engineering are inherently interdisciplinary, and proposals for collaborative approaches are encouraged to address research and education themes with a synergistic blend of expertise as appropriate. Each successful proposal may be funded by either one or more
The National Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year (FY) 2009 budget request to Congress identifies areas for NSF-wide investments. Strengthening capabilities in each of these areas will enhance the productivity and efficiency of the science and engineering enterprise while producing concrete economic and social benefits for the nation.
Examples of major crosscutting activities include ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers, Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER), Graduate Fellowships and Traineeships, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER), Research Experiences for Teachers (RET), Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) and Science and Technology Centers (STCs).
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research (NEESR)
CONTACTS
Name Phone Room Joy M. Pauschke jpauschk@nsf.gov (703) 292-7024 545 S Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Richard J. Fragaszy, Program Director, Geotechnical Engineering Program, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-7011, fax: (703) 292-9053, email: rfragasz@nsf.gov
Joy M. Pauschke, Program Director, George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-7024, fax: (703) 292-9053, email: jpauschk@nsf.gov
Dennis Wenger, Program Director, Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events Program, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-8606, fax (703) 292-9053, email: dwenger@nsf.gov
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Solicitation 11-512SYNOPSIS
The Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) in the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) invites proposals for research that uses the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) to advance knowledge, discovery, and innovation for (1) earthquake and tsunami loss reduction of our nation's civil infrastructure, and (2) new experimental simulation techniques and instrumentation for NEES. NEES comprises a network of 14 earthquake engineering experimental equipment sites available for experimentation on-site or in the field and through telepresence. NEES equipment sites include shake tables, geotechnical centrifuges, a tsunami wave basin, unique large-scale testing laboratory facilities, and mobile and permanently installed field equipment. The NEEShub cyberinfrastructure connects, via Internet2, the equipment sites as well as provides telepresence; a curated central data repository known as the NEES Project Warehouse; simulation tools; collaborative tools for facilitating on-line planning, execution, and post-processing of experiments; and the NEES Academy for education and outreach. Projects proposed and supported under this solicitation must require significant use of one or more of the NEES equipment sites listed at http://www.nees.org and the related cyberinfrastructure and/or require significant reuse of data curated and archived in the NEES Project Warehouse at http://nees.org/warehouse . Proposals that seek new scientific inquiry through reuse of data curated and archived in the NEES Project Warehouse, either alone or in combination with use of the NEES equipment site(s), will be considered. The data eligible for reuse from the NEES Project Warehouse must be data that are curated, archived, and publicly viewable and available at http://nees.org/warehouse .
RELATED URLS
NEES Operations at Purdue University
THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF
Opportunities that Highlight International Collaboration
Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructures
What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts)
Map of Recent Awards Made Through This Program
GSA Testing Innovative Sustainable Technologies and Practices
Green Proving Ground program to test emerging technologies in federal buildings.
GSA # 10793
April 21, 2011
MaryAnne Beatty, 202-501-0768
maryanne.beatty@gsa.govWASHINGTON – GSA announced today that it will test and evaluate 16 emerging sustainable building technologies and practices in select federal facilities under its Green Proving Ground Program. Testing will determine the most effective technologies that may then be replicated on a wider-scale basis throughout the GSA inventory, with the goal of transforming markets for these technologies.
“GSA is leading the way in sustainable design and construction operations,” GSA Administrator Martha N. Johnson said. “By using our real estate portfolio as a test bed for new technologies, we can then provide further innovation in energy-efficiency standards and implement best practices that will lead the market.”
The technologies selected were from a pool of approximately 140 projects across GSA's national portfolio that are currently implementing innovative or underutilized sustainable building technologies. The 16 technologies and practices were selected for evaluation because they have the greatest potential to meet GSA's sustainability goals. Examples of the technologies chosen include wireless temperature sensors, electrochromic windows, high R-value windows, integrated lighting systems, thin-film photovoltaic panels, solar water heating with integrated photovoltaic panels, chilled beams, and nonchemical water treatment systems.
With support from the Department of Energy's National Laboratories, the Green Proving Ground Program will perform enhanced testing, monitoring, and evaluation on these selected technologies. Notable findings from all of the projects will be used to support the development of performance specifications for GSA's real estate portfolio and other federal agencies. Additionally, testing these technologies will assist industry in deploying the technology and practices studied.
For more information on the 16 technologies to be evaluated under GSA's Green Proving Ground Program and on GSA's registry of sustainable building technologies, visit http://www.gsa.gov/GPG .
As the federal government's workplace solutions provider, the U.S. General Services Administration works to foster an effective, sustainable and transparent government for the American people. GSA's expertise in government workplace solutions include:
• Effective management of government assets including more than 9,600 government-owned or leased buildings and 215,000 vehicles in the federal fleet, and preservation of historic federal properties;
• Leveraging the government's buying power through responsible acquisition of products and services making up approximately 14 percent of the government's total procurement dollars;
• Providing innovative technology solutions to enhance government efficiency and increase citizen engagement; and,
• Promoting responsible use of federal resources through development of government wide policies ranging from federal travel to property and management practices.GSA contract award services where Fedmarket handles all aspects of preparation, submission, and negotiation of the GSA Schedule proposal. The goal of the engagement is the award of your GSA Schedule contract.
Public Release: 21-Apr-2011
IEEE/NIH 2011 Life Science Systems and Applications Workshop
Researchers create functioning synapse using carbon nanotubes
Engineering researchers at the University of Southern California have made a significant breakthrough in the use of nanotechnologies for the construction of a synthetic brain. They have built a carbon nanotube synapse circuit whose behavior in tests reproduces the function of a neuron, the building block of the brain.
National Science Foundation, Viterbi School of Engineering, USC Women in Science and Engineering ProgramContact: Eric Mankin
mankin@usc.edu
213-821-1887
University of Southern California
Labor Category Hourly Rate Senior Officer $ 269.53 Officer $ 172.49 Senior System Analyst $ 134.78 Senior Database Developer $ 118.59 Database Developer $ 108.77 IT Research Analyst $ 51.58 ( In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.)
Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Breathe easy.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
Today's environmental tip: Breathe easy! On unhealthy air pollution "action alert" days, wait to mow your lawn until it's cooler in the evening or early the next morning. You help reduce air pollution for everyone near you if you run gas-powered equipment, like lawn mowers, when it's cooler. You also protect your health by avoiding ground-level ozone during the warmest part of the day.
More information: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.actiondays
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcastsen español: ¡Respire fácilmente! En los días de aviso de contaminación del aire malsano, espere para usar la cortadora de césped hasta cuando refresque en la noche o temprano en la mañana siguiente. Puede contribuir a la reducción de la contaminación del aire para todos a su alrededor si usa el equipo que usa combustible como las cortadoras de césped cuando hace más fresco. También protege su salud al evitar el ozono a nivel terrestre durante las horas más calientes del día.
Más información: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.actiondays
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htmWant 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
Open Date Opportunity Title Agency Funding Number Attachment
04/18/2011 Research Interests of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research Air Force Office of Scientific Research BAA-AFOSR-2011-01 1 BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) 1. Agency Name Air Force 03/01/2011 FY2011 – 2016 Basic Research for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (C-WMD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Defense Threat Reduction Agency HDTRA1-11-16-BRCWMD-BAA DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY , 11/30/2010 Energy for Sustainability National Science Foundation PD-11-7644
11/30/2010 Catalysis and Biocatalysis National Science Foundation PD-11-1401
07/14/2009 Chemical Catalysis National Science Foundation PD-09-6884
05/08/2009 NRL WIDE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT BAA-N00173-01 Naval Research Laboratory BAA-N00173-01 NRL BAA Announcement #61-09-05 , 02/12/2009 DTRA FY2009 – 2011 Basic Research for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Defense Threat Reduction Agency HDTRA1-08-10-BRCWMD-BAA 2004 CBDIF BAA , BRCWMD , BRCWMD , DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT HDTRA1 11/25/2008 ARL/ARO Broad Agency Announcement-Revised Dept of the Army -- Materiel Command W911NF-07-R-0001-03 ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY AND THE ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE BROAD AGENCY ... , 06/06/2008 ARO Broad Agency Announcement-Revised Dept of the Army -- Materiel Command W911NF-07-R-0003-02 ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR BASIC AND ... , ARMY
Major California Property Rights Victory for Landowners in Eminent Domain Abuse Fight
National City Violated Federal Constitution and State Laws
Published on Apr 23, 2011 - 5:41:49 AMBy: Institute for Justice
NATIONAL CITY, Calif. April 22, 2011 — A California gym that mentors at-risk kids scored a knockout legal blow against eminent domain abuse in California. Yesterday, April 21, Judge Steven R. Denton of the Superior Court of California ruled in favor of the Community Youth Athletic Center (CYAC) and against National City, Calif., in one of the most important property rights cases in the nation. Carlos Barragan, Jr., who along with his father created the CYAC as a means of keeping local at-risk kids out of gangs, will join with other CYAC leaders at the gym at 10:30 a.m. California time to discuss the ruling with the media. The gym is located at 1018 National City Blvd., National City, Calif.
The Court struck down National City's entire 692-property eminent domain zone in the first decision to apply the legal reforms that California enacted to counter the disastrous U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision in 2005. This ruling, which found that National City lacked a legal basis for its blight declaration, reinforces vital protections for property owners across the state, and underscores why redevelopment agencies should be abolished.
The Court also ruled that National City violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution in failing to provide the CYAC with statutorily required information prior to an important public hearing.
Finally, in a holding with implications well beyond redevelopment law, the Court also held that when the government retains a private consultant to perform government functions—in this case, documenting the existence of alleged "blight" in National City—documents that the private consultant produces are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The Court also set a clear standard for what government agencies have to do in searching the records of their private consultants in response to a Public Records Act request.
"After Kelo, the California Legislature limited a city's ability to declare ‘blight' based on trivial things like ‘lack of parking' and required real evidence and documentation from redevelopment agencies," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the CYAC for free. "National City completely ignored the new law when it decided to threaten the CYAC and nearly 700 other properties with eminent domain for private development. The Court's decision holds that the new law placed real restrictions on redevelopment agencies and that National City violated the law. This is the very first case interpreting the changes to the law that went into effect on January 1, 2007, in response to the Kelo decision."
Berliner said, "This decision will go a long way in protecting Californians throughout the state against eminent domain abuse."
Clemente Casillas, the CYAC President, said, "I hope National City does the right thing now and throws in the towel so we can get back to focusing all our attention on helping to grow the kids in our community. The city can have redevelopment, but that has to be done through private negotiation, not by government force."
IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes said, "Redevelopment agencies always use private consultants to come up with blight studies. The Court ruled that the documents and data produced by those consultants are public records, just like government-produced documents. That ruling will help everyone trying to fight a blight designation of their neighborhood, and it will also help the media and anyone else trying to get more information about government projects. We've been saying for years that the city's blight study lacked any information the CYAC needed to do a meaningful review. The court agreed, saying it was mostly jargon and that the city should have given the CYAC more time and continued the public hearing when the CYAC requested it."
California Governor Jerry Brown has proposed eliminating local redevelopment agencies across the state. These agencies, which are run by the cities they reside in, have taken properties they didn't own only to hand that land over to those with more political power. They have driven city after city in California to the brink of bankruptcy, often for nothing more than private gain.
"National City has been labeling this area blighted since the 1960s," said Rowes. "This decision provides another example of a redevelopment agency that is out of control and should be abolished."
The CYAC got almost everything it asked for in this lawsuit. The Court invalidated the city's redevelopment plan amendment that authorized eminent domain, declared that the city violated the Public Records Act, declared that the city violated the CYAC's due process rights, and gave the CYAC nominal damages. The CYAC is finally free from the threat of eminent domain for the first time in nearly four years.
Richard M. Segal, Brian D. Martin and Nathan R. Smith from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in San Diego, acting as pro bono local counsel, put in extraordinary time and effort on the case.Human rules may determine environmental 'tipping points'
Published Apr 16, 2011 - 7:53:58 AM
A new paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) suggests that people, governments, and institutions that shape the way people interact may be just as important for determining environmental conditions as the environmental processes themselves.
Read MoreResearchers create functioning synapse using carbon nanotubes
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 7:24:30 AM
Engineering researchers at USC Viterbi have made a significant breakthrough in the use of nanotechnologies for the construction of a synthetic brain. They have built a carbon nanotube synapse circuit whose behavior in tests reproduces the function of a neuron input, the synapse, the a building block of the brain.
Read More
Appendix 19
Terms & Acronyms
Acronym
Definition
AC
Advisory Committee
AC/GPA
Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment
AD
ARRA
NSF Assistant director
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
BFA
Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management
BIO
Directorate for Biological Sciences
BIIS
NSF Budget Internet Information System
CAREER
Faculty Early Career Development Program
CGI
Continuing Grant Increments
CISE
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering
COV
Committee of Visitors
EAGER
EHR
Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
EIS
Enterprise Information System
ENG
Directorate for Engineering
EPSCoR
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
FTE
Full-Time Equivalent
FY
Fiscal Year
GEO
Directorate for Geosciences
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
IPAs
Temporary employees hired through Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPAMM
Impact of Proposal & Award Management Mechanisms
IPS
Interactive Panel System
MPS
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
NSB
National Science Board
NSF
National Science Foundation
OCI
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
OD
Office of the Director
ODS
Online Document System
OIA
Office of Integratative Activities
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OISE
Office of International Science & Engineering
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OPP
Office of Polar Programs
PARS
Proposal, PI and Reviewer System
PART
Program Assessment Rating Tool
PI
Principal Investigator
RAPID
R&RA
Grants for Rapid Response Research
Research and Related Activities
SBE
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
SGER
Small Grants for Exploratory Research
VSEE
Visiting Scientists, Engineers and Educators
Advisories
Special Instructions for Institutions and Businesses entering Primary Place of Performance (PPoP)
The FastLane Cover Sheet has been revised for consistency with the requirements of the Federal Funding & Accountability Act (FFATA) to replace the Performing/Research Organization information with Project/Performance Site Primary Location information. This change already has been made on a government-wide basis in the SF 424 family of forms. If the project will be performed at a location other than the awardee, additional geographic information must be provided (GPG, Chapter II.C.2.a).
To ensure compliance with the FFATA reporting requirements, and to improve the quality of data associated with NSF-funded awards, the GPG now specifies that a nine-digit zip code be entered in the applicable cover sheet field. The nine-digit zip code is validated against the US Postal Service?s (USPS) database, which ensures that the location can be accurately identified as well as aligning with the correct congressional district.
When entering the zip code for the Primary Place of Performance for locations within the United States, you may encounter the error message 'a valid zip code is required'. If you receive this error message, you must enter the correct zip code in order to submit your proposal. It is recommended that you look up the street address of the Project/Performance Site Primary Location on the USPS website http://usps.com and enter the zip code displayed there.
NASA And Partners Fund New Climate Impact Studies On Species And Ecosystems
Published Apr 22, 2011 - 11:35:46 AM
NASA is partnering with other federal agencies to fund new research and applications efforts that will bring the global view of climate from space down to Earth to benefit wildlife and key ecosystems.
Read More
LHC sets world record beam intensity
Published Apr 22, 2011 - 8:15:10 AM
Around midnight this night CERN[1]'s Large Hadron Collider today set a new world record for beam intensity at a hadron collider when it collided beams with a luminosity of 4.67 x 1032cm-2s-1. This exceeds the previous world record of 4.024 x 1032cm-2s-1, which was set by the US Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory's Tevatron collider in 2010, and marks an important milestone in LHC commissioning.
Read MoreGaramendi Calls on Lawmakers to Protect Critical Environmental Protection Laws under Attack
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 5:16:07 AM
Today is a special day for the billions of world citizens who treasure Earth, that bountiful yet fragile planet delicately balanced to let human civilization evolve and thrive. In our day-to-day lives, it's easy to forget how lucky we are to have inherited the habitats, waterways, and atmosphere that make our very existence possible.
Read More
Public Meeting in Sacramento on Bay Delta Conservation Plan April 25
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 4:33:35 AM
California Secretary for Natural Resources and Deputy Secretary of the Interior will hold a public meeting to discuss the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Natural Resources Agency Deputy Secretary Dr. Jerry Meral will provide an update on the working draft of the plan, the process for resolution of key features, and important environmental analysis needed before a final plan can be approved. Stakeholder panels made up of Delta communities, water users and conservation organizations will provide their perspectives on the opportunities and challenges facing the BDCP. Senior administration officials will also talk one-on-one with meeting attendees to hear their individual thoughts on the BDCP process moving forward.
Read MoreGreenVu.com - Offers Gateway to Resources and Valuable Information for the Entire Green Community – From Educators to Environmentalists, Corporations to Communities
GreenVu.com will provide an immediate portal to valuable data including videos, sustainability reports, case studies and whitepapers, as well as accessibility to the actual innovators and visionaries who are leading the charge – from corporations to communities, environmentalists to engineers, academics to activists, individuals to innovators.
Boca Raton, FL (PRWEB) April 22, 2011
GreenVu.com plans to be the premier central clearinghouse where corporations, individuals and organizations can tell their green stories. “Everyone has a green story to tell,” says Bill Cocose, founder. “We wanted to provide a forum where you can engage with academic institutions, learn about research initiatives and corporate success stories, interact with individuals and communities, and share green successes and failures while collectively supporting each other.”
GreenVu, operated by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, was founded on the principles of neutrality, transparency and universal access to valuable information, as well as the philosophy that by sharing stories of both success and failure, we can better prepare future generations and provide the tools and support for successful green initiatives. Formed by professionals with decades of expertise in sustainability, smart growth, environment, construction, development, finance and Brownfields, GreenVu's mission is to help connect the green community, and to promote the efficient collection, organization and dissemination of green stories, information and resources worldwide.
GreenVu will provide an immediate portal to valuable data including videos, sustainability reports, case studies and whitepapers, as well as accessibility to the actual innovators and visionaries who are leading the charge – from corporations to communities, environmentalists to engineers, academics to activists, individuals to innovators.
Says Cocose, “Everyone's got a green story to tell, from corporations reaching out to customers or investors, to a university wanting to talk about both green efforts in their facilities as well as their green curricula to attract students, to a community looking for solutions to sustainability problems and trying to attract new residents, to NGOs getting their very good stories told more broadly. Even our politicians wish to communicate their green stories. We want to be the place where everyone can conveniently, completely and reliably find this information. We don't want to compete with the excellent green web initiatives already in place, but rather view ourselves as a value-added benefit to all, by providing links, feature stories, partnerships and other ways to support individual efforts.
Cocose's transition from construction and development in Chicago to Brownfields nationwide opened his eyes to the value and importance of recycling land and buildings. “As parents of young fraternal twin boys,” says Cocose, “both my wife and I care deeply about conserving nature and the wildlife occupying our planet, and doing whatever we can to help show our youth that you can make a living and make a difference. We see the importance of turning future generations into proactive rather than reactive cultures when it comes to managing and respecting our precious resources.”
“Sharing information and helping to connect the very good dots already in place helps to educate us all, and if we can unite the green community, then the sum will vastly exceed the individual parts.”
What's Your Story? Come share at http://www.greenvu.com .
A New Foundation for Energy and the Environment
"As we continue to tackle our environmental challenges, it's clear that change won't come from Washington alone. It will come from Americans across the country who take steps in their own homes and their own communities to make that change happen."
16 USC 1802 - Sec. 1802. Definitions -STATUTE-As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires - (1) The term 'anadromous species' means species of fish which spawn in fresh or estuarine waters of the United States and which migrate to ocean waters. (2) The term 'bycatch' means fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or...
Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/context-requires-spawn-migrate-harvested-19237320#ixzz1KYrW1x78
TITLE 16--CONSERVATION CHAPTER 56A--PACIFIC SALMON FISHING Sec. 3640. Administrative matters (a) Compensation of Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who are not State or Federal employees shall receive compensation at the daily rate of GS-18 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (b) Compensation of Panel Members and Alternate Panel Members Panel Members and Alternate Panel Members who are not State or Federal employees shall receive compensation at the daily rate of GS-16 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (c) Travel; other expenses Travel and other necessary expenses shall be paid for all United States Commissioners, Alternate Commissioners, Panel Members, Alternate Panel Members, members of the Joint Technical Committee, and members of the Advisory Committee when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (d) Individuals not considered Federal employees Except for officials of the United States Government, such individuals shall not be considered to be Federal employees while engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission, except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in chapter 81 of title 5 and chapter 71 \1\ of title 28. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ So in original. Probably should be chapter ``171''. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Pub. L. 99-5, Sec. 11, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 14.) References in Other Laws to GS-16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates References in laws to the rates of pay for GS-16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, Sec. 101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101-509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
The Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships program supports innovative, potentially transformative, complex research and education projects that require large-scale, long-term awards. STCs conduct world-class research through partnerships among academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities , and via international collaborations, as appropriate. They provide a means to undertake significant investigations at the interfaces of disciplines and/or fresh approaches within disciplines. STCs may involve any areas of science and engineering that NSF supports. STC investments support the NSF vision of advancing discovery, innovation and education beyond the frontiers of current knowledge, and empowering future generations in science and engineering.
Centers provide a rich environment for encouraging future scientists, engineers, and educators to take risks in pursuing discoveries and new knowledge. STCs foster excellence in education by integrating education and research, and by creating bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity fully support the learning process.
NSF expects STCs to demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering at all levels (faculty, students, and postdoctoral researchers) within the Center. Centers use either proven or innovative mechanisms to address issues such as recruitment, retention and mentorship of participants from underrepresented groups.
Centers must undertake activities that facilitate knowledge transfer, i.e., the exchange of scientific and technical information with the objective of disseminating and utilizing knowledge broadly in multiple sectors. Examples of knowledge transfer include technology transfer with the intention of supporting innovation, providing key information to public policy makers, or dissemination of knowledge from one field of science to another.
RELATED URLS
Additional Resources (STC Map, Active Centers, Reports, and Items of Interest)
STC FAQs
THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF
Opportunities that Highlight International CollaborationWanted by EPA: Scientists for controversial climate mission
By Ben Geman - 04/26/11 09:34 AM ETThe Environmental Protection Agency is seeking experts to help unwrap a wonky but politically charged question: How to measure the carbon footprint of using biomass for energy.
EPA in January backed off applying greenhouse gas permitting rules to power plants and other facilities that use plant matter to make energy.
EPA said it would use the three-year delay to improve methods for accounting for the carbon footprint of using various types of forest and other plant materials. On Wednesday, the agency is slated to publish a request for nominations to serve on a panel of EPA's Science Advisory Board that will weigh the matter.Accounting for the climate change impacts of biomass energy remains an emerging science, one that wades into whether a renewable energy source is always an environmentally friendly one too.
A key question is how to track carbon released from land-use changes related to harvesting plant matter.
So . . . the solicitation to be released Wednesday says the science advisors want experts who can address topics such as “Forestry, agriculture, and land-use change, specifically the effects of land management practices on the terrestrial biosphere,” and “Land use economics, ecological relationships between land use and climate change and/or estimates of biomass supply and demand.”
EPA's view is that biomass energy is green energy — if done right. Administrator Lisa Jackson, when announcing the permitting delay in January, said, “Renewable, homegrown power sources are essential to our energy future, and an important step to cutting the pollution responsible for climate change.”
But the agency also noted at the time that burning some types of biomass “may result in a net increase in CO2 emissions.”
EPA has come under heavy pressure from the forest industry and some Capitol Hill lawmakers fearful that applying emissions rules to biomass would stymie the market for the energy source.FEMA Faulted: The Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to significantly improve its information technology programs. In a report issued in early April, the Inspector General's Office at the Department of Homeland Security said FEMA's "existing existing information technology systems do not support disaster response activities effectively."
While FEMA has a number of information technology modernization initiatives under way, the agency lacks a comprehensive information technology strategic plan, the report notes. In addition, FEMA has not completed its efforts to document the agency's enterprise architecture.
"Without these critical elements, the agency is challenged to establish an effective approach to modernize its information technology infrastructure and systems," said Frank Deffer, assistant inspector general at DHS. FEMA spent $391 million on IT in 2010.
Permitting process for Nanocenter site ‘crazy and absurd'
EDGE frustrated over need to find tenant before development starts
By BRYON ACKERMAN Observer-Dispatch Posted Apr 23, 2011 @ 02:10 PMMARCY —
Ask local officials about the future of the Mohawk Valley, and they're likely to point to the Marcy NanoCenter at SUNYIT site as a sign of hope.
But the permitting process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has delayed efforts to develop the site, and it continues to restrict Mohawk Valley EDGE's ability to market it to potential companies, said Steven DiMeo, president of the economic development organization.
The permitting efforts have been taking place since June 2006, and EDGE (Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corp.) has spent more than $800,000 on associated legal, engineering and planning costs, DiMeo said.
A new permit issued last week from the Army Corps' Buffalo District still won't allow EDGE to conduct development work on wetlands at the site until EDGE gets a company to commit to locating there.
DiMeo argued that it will be much more difficult to attract a company to the site without first completing the wetlands work.
“It's just crazy and absurd,” DiMeo said. “It defies common sense.”
The goal for the Marcy NanoCenter site is to attract a semiconductor manufacturing company that could transform the local economy by creating jobs and leading to supportive businesses opening.
‘No need'
A permit from the Army Corps last May included Special Condition No. 1, which prevents EDGE from doing work on wetlands on the site until an end user commits to development. EDGE objected to the special condition in July, and the Army Corps rescinded the permit in October, DiMeo said.
The new permit presented last week also restricts mitigation work and the moving of a power line that would have been allowed under the previous permit, DiMeo said.
Bruce Sanders, spokesman of the Army Corps' Buffalo District, said the organization “recognizes the current difficult economic climate and EDGE's interest in bringing new jobs to the Mohawk Valley region.”
“We are also aware of the benefit of having a signed permit in hand as a marketing tool,” Sanders said. “That is why we have exercised the maximum degree of flexibility allowed under federal regulations in twice proffering a permit to EDGE, even though they do not yet have an identified end-user tenant.”
Federal guidelines don't specifically say you have to have an end user before getting a permit to do work on wetlands, but the regulations do say that a need for the work has to be established, said Steven Metivier, chief of the Army Corps New York Applications Evaluation Section, Regulatory Branch.
If EDGE receives a permit but never gets a company to locate there, then you can't justify the necessity of the project, Metivier said.
“Without a tenant, there is no need to fill wetlands on that site,” he said.
The Marcy NanoCenter project would impact almost eight acres of wetlands, but it also would create about 13 acres of new wetlands, permanently preserve almost 24 acres of existing wetlands and involve additional environmental enhancements, according to EDGE.
‘Something similar'
To help its argument, EDGE has found three examples of times when the Army Corps issued permits without having an end user in place for projects on land where wetlands would be impacted. Such permits were awarded in 1991 in Savannah, Ga., in 2006 in Redding, Calif., and in 2007 at the local Schuyler Business Park, DiMeo said.
The project in Georgia was developing the Crossroads Business Center on a 1,784-acre park, which had more than 1,300 acres of wetlands, according to EDGE.
When the Army Corps issued the permit in 1991, there was a news conference in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the achievement, said Andrew Ernst, a Georgia attorney who served as special counsel to the Savannah Economic Development Authority for the project.
The Crossroads Business Center went on to become a major success and is still thriving today, said Ernst, who has more than 30 years of experience in environmental law, land use, commercial real estate development and industrial development.
Ernst said he isn't familiar with the details of the Marcy NanoCenter project, and each Army Corps district office is different, but the project in Georgia shows that the Army Corps has issued permits for work involving wetlands without having an end user in place.
Bridget Brown, the Army Corps project manager for the Marcy NanoCenter site, said the other projects were different — they were business parks with a goal of multiple end users. Development work conducted at the other sites also was primarily focused on infrastructure construction, she said.
“After due diligence, we concluded that those projects are not comparable to the EDGE proposal,” Sanders said.
‘Quickly as possible'
EDGE also has turned to local federal officials to ask for help on the issue, and the members of Congress say they're on the case.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is trying to help forge a solution because of the impact the project could have on the Mohawk Valley economy, Schumer spokesman Matt House said.
“Sen. Schumer strongly believes that this project should be allowed to move forward as quickly as possible so that we can build a facility that will in turn attract a world-class nanotechnology tenant,” House said.
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., also will continue working with EDGE and the Army Corps to address each side's concerns, spokesman James Rahm said.
On April 4, U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, R-Barneveld, sent a letter to the Army Corps arguing that past precedent shows that the Army Corps can issue the permit to EDGE without the special condition. On Thursday, Hanna said in a released statement that he would stay involved with the issue.
“I fully support the Mohawk Valley EDGE and their need for a clean permit, without special conditions, so that they can begin construction on the nanotechnology center on the SUNYIT campus,” Hanna said.
A meeting is being organized among EDGE, the Army Corps and the local federal officials, according to Schumer's office.
Copyright 2011 The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York. Some rights reservedDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 4, 8, 17, 37, and 52 [FAR Case 2010-010; Docket 2010-0010, Sequence 1] RIN 9000-AM06 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Service Contracts Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. This proposed rule amends the FAR to require service contractors for executive agencies, except the Department of Defense (DoD), covered by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, to submit information annually in support of agency-level inventories for service contracts.
Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
Synopsis
Full Announcement
Application
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 04/22/2011 . 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: 11-538 Opportunity Category: Discretionary Posted Date: Apr 22, 2011 Creation Date: Apr 22, 2011 Original Closing Date for Applications: Jul 21, 2011 07/21/2011 Initiation Project 08/04/2011 Targeted STEM Infusion Project 08/04/2011 Proposals for Research Initiation Awards Proposals Accepted Anytime Planning Grants; Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education Proposals Current Closing Date for Applications: Jul 21, 2011 07/21/2011 Initiation Project 08/04/2011 Targeted STEM Infusion Project 08/04/2011 Proposals for Research Initiation Awards Proposals Accepted Anytime Planning Grants; Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education Proposals Archive Date:
Funding Instrument Type: Grant
Category of Funding Activity: Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards: 23 Estimated Total Program Funding: $7,000,000 Award Ceiling: $2,500,000 Award Floor: $50,000 CFDA Number(s): 47.076 -- Education and Human Resources Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No Eligible Applicants
Others (see text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility" for clarification)
Additional Information on Eligibility:
*Organization Limit: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: -Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions as defined in Section IV of this solicitation.????Priority for TSIP??awards will be given to TCUP-eligible institutions that have not previously received Implementation-level support. *PI Limit:For the Planning Grant and Initiation Project award tracks, the??Principal Investigator (PI) is expected to be the chief academic officer of the institution, or another senior academic officer responsible for oversight and management of curriculum and instructional policies for the institution.?? All full time faculty members??at TCUP-eligible institutions are eligible to serve as PI on Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education. Typically, the PI for??Targeted STEM Infusion Projects and Research Initiation Award??proposals would be a member of the STEM faculty. Prospective PIs are encouraged to consult TCUP program staff.
Agency Name
National Science FoundationDescription
The Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) provides awards to Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions to promote high quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, research, and outreach. TCUP-eligible institutions are predominantly two-year and community colleges. Support is available to TCUP-eligible institutions (see the Additional Eligibility subsection of Section IV of this solicitation) for Planning Grants, Initiation Projects, Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education??(BPR) Projects,??Targeted STEM Infusion Projects (TSIP), and Research Initiation Awards (RIA). Through these mechanisms, along with collaborations with other National Science Foundation (NSF) units and its work with other organizations,??TCUP??aims to??increase Native individuals' participation in STEM careers and the quality of STEM programs at??TCUP-eligible institutions. TCUP strongly encourages the inclusion of activities that will benefit veterans. Planning Grants provide support to undertake self-analysis of the TCUP-eligible institution's undergraduate STEM programs to identify components that need improvement or enhancement in order to ensure a high-quality??undergraduate STEM education.?? Initiation??Projects provide support to design, implement??and assess comprehensive institutional efforts to increase the numbers of STEM students and the quality of their preparation by strengthening STEM education and research. Initiation??Projects create and/or adapt and assess innovative models and materials for teaching and learning in STEM, embody knowledge about how students learn most effectively in STEM teaching and learning activities, and bring STEM disciplinary advances into the undergraduate experience. Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education (BPR) provides support for research projects that seek to create and study new models and innovations in STEM teaching and learning, enhance the understanding of the participation of diverse groups in STEM education and inform education practices and interventions.?? BPR projects add new research-based strategies and models to broadening participation in STEM and increase the capacity of scholars in TCUP-eligible institutions to conduct this type of research. Targeted STEM Infusion Projects (TSIP) provide support toward achieving a short-term, well-defined goal that promises to improve the quality of undergraduate STEM education at an eligible institution.?? Targeted STEM Infusion Projects could, for example, enhance academic infrastructure by systematically adding traditional knowledge to the scope or content of a STEM course, updating curriculum, modernizing laboratory research equipment, or improving the computational network array for research and education. Research Initiation Awards (RIA) provide support for??faculty members in STEM areas at??TCUP-eligible institutions to pursue research at an NSF-funded Center, at a research-intensive institution, or at a national laboratory. Awards are intended to help further the faculty member's research capability and effectiveness, to improve research and teaching at his or her home institution, and to involve undergraduate students in research experiences. These awards are particularly appropriate??as a means of recruiting and retaining??highly qualified scientists and engineers at TCUP-eligible institutions.Other funding opportunities include: Conferences, Symposia, and Workshops; EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) and Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grants; and Grant Supplements for existing awards. PIs are invited to seek supplemental support from NSF for their participating students and faculty who are accepted as participants in one of four Department of Energy??initiatives: Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internships (SULI), Faculty-Student Teams (FaST), Community College Institutes (CCI),and Pre-Service Teacher (PST) Internships. The Dear Colleague Letter is found here. The initiatives are intended to support the research opportunities in DoE national laboratories during the summer.
Link to Full Announcement
NSF Publication 11-538If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:
NSF grants.gov support
grantsgovsupport@nsf.gov
If you have any problems linking to this funding announcement, please contactSynopsis Modification History
There are currently no modifications for this opportunity.
Subject: Awards and Recognition News Release (Region 9): U.S. EPA launches "Federal Green Challenge" in the Pacific Southwest
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
U.S. EPA launches "Federal Green Challenge " in the Pacific Southwest
Federal participants pledge to cut federal waste, reduce "carbon footprints" and save money
SAN FRANCISCO -- The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Pacific Southwest Region has launched the West Coast Federal Green Challenge. The campaign kicks off during Earth Week and celebrates the commitment of 34 federal agencies, representing more than 150,000 federal employees doing their part to reduce their environmental impact. Under this new initiative, federal government facilities pledge to reduce their carbon emissions by 5% or more per year in at least two of six areas: waste, water, energy, transportation, electronics, and purchasing.
“As the nation's largest purchaser of goods and services, spending $425 billion a year, the federal government should leverage its collective purchasing power to protect human health and the environment,” said Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator of EPA's Pacific Southwest Region. Federal agencies have responded enthusiastically to our call to reduce environmental footprints.”
Environmentally preferable purchasing helps the environment when agencies buy less, or choose “green” products. Blumenfeld also noted that the federal government is the largest buyer of energy in the U.S., and accounts for 7% of the world's information technology purchases. The federal government also controls a real estate portfolio of more than 1.2 million assets including 550,000 buildings.
Joining the West Coast Green Challenge are:
All California
· Navy Region Southwest (predominantly San Diego Area)
· US Forest Service (Region 5)
· Rural Development (California)
San Francisco Bay Area
· US Environmental Protection Agency (Pacific Southwest Region)
· NASA (Ames Research Center)
· United States Postal Service (San Francisco District)
· Center for Medicare and Medicaid
· Office of Labor-Management Standards
· Health and Human Services (Office of Assistant Secretary for Health)
· San Francisco Federal Executive Board
· Employee Benefits Security Administration
· Division of Federal Workers' Compensation
· Department of Labor (Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management)
· Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
· US Treasury (San Francisco Financial Center)
· Social Security Administration (Richmond)
· Golden Gate National Recreation Area
· Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
· Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
· General Services Administration (San Francisco Office)
· Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
· US Department of Veterans Affairs (Northern California Health Care System)
· Small Business Administration (Region 9)
Los Angeles
· Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board
· Drug Enforcement Administration (Los Angeles)
· US Department of Housing and Urban Development (Los Angeles Office)
· US Citizen and Immigration Services (Western Region)
· US Attorney's Office (Central District of CA)
Sacramento
· Bureau of Indian Affairs (Sacramento)
· Fish & Wildlife Service (Pacific Southwest Region)
Arizona
· Grand Canyon National Park
Nevada
· Navy Region Southwest (1 base)
· Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Hawaii
· Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park
The Federal Green Challenge was originally launched in 2008 in EPA's Pacific Northwest Region. This new effort will expand the Federal Green Challenge to the entire West Coast. Last year, the Federal Green Challenge in the Pacific Northwest Region reduced the carbon footprint of its partners by 380 million pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and saved over $1 million for the government.
In addition to the Pacific Southwest Region's new partners, six new partners are also joining the Pacific Northwest's 23 existing partners: Census Bureau (Seattle Regional Office), Dept. of Commerce Office of Inspector General (Seattle Regional Office), Federal Emergency Management Agency (Region 10, Bothell Federal Regional Center), National Archives & Records Administration (Pacific Alaska Region), Seattle Federal Executive Board, Small Business Administration (Seattle District Office), and U.S. Attorney's Office (Western District of Washington).
For more information on the West Coast Federal G reen Challenge please visit,
http://www.epa.gov/region9/fedfac/green/index.html
Media Contact: Margot Perez-Sullivan, perezsullivan.margot@epa.gov
Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Proper maintenance reduces waste.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
MSDSonline Launches New Hazardous Chemical Inventory Management...
April 22, 2011 -- Comprehensive Compliance Management Solution for EH&S Professionals View News Release
Green and Cost-Effective Solutions From Intelligent Decisions, Inc.,...
April 22, 2011 -- With the Federal Government Focusing More Than Ever on Green IT, Intelligent Decisions to Highlight Company's Energy-Efficient and Cost Reducing Solutions at AFCEA Energy and the Environment IT... View News Release
Catapult Technology Wins General Services Administration's Mentor...
April 22, 2011 -- Catapult Technology, Ltd. has won the Administrator's Award for Mentorship Excellence in recognition of Catapult's participation in the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA)... View News Release
USOBA Announces Biggest-Ever EVOLUTION Debt Relief Conference
April 22, 2011 -- The United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives (USOBA) today announced Evolution2011, the largest and most significant conference of its kind in the history of the debt relief industry.... View News Release
Financial Services Lobbyist Mark Guimond to Speak at Debt Relief...
April 22, 2011 -- Mark Guimond, a leading lobbyist for financial services issues and trade associations, will be a featured speaker at the TASC "Mission Possible Part 2" Conference in Las Vegas on the subject... View News Release
Resource Record Details
FEMA-National Marine Fisheries Service Programmatic Biological Assessment
FEMA has prepared this Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) for the purpose of initiating a programmatic consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This PBA describes the types of projects usually funded by FEMA and it evaluates typical recurring actions undertaken by FEMA within the State of California in preparation for and in the wake of disasters. This document will facilitate FEMA's compliance with the Endagered Species Act (ESA) by providing a framework to address affects to Federally listed species from projects typically funded in response to flood, earthquake, fire, and wind disasters, and to prevent future disasters resulting from these types of events. Through programmatic consultation, NMFS and FEMA intend to streamline the consultations process for these typically recurring actions in California.
Document Details:
Resource Type: Document / Report Audience Categories: Volunteers
Businesses / Professionals
Educational Institutes and Professionals
Floodplain Managers
General Public / Households
Design and Construction Industry
Scientific and Research Organizations / Institutions
Hazard Mitigation Officers
State, Local and Tribal Representatives
Emergency Personnel and Managers
Children / Kids
Lenders and Brokers
Pet / Livestock Owners
Federal Agencies
News Media
Trade Associations
Insurance Industry
Realtors
Planners
FEMA Regions
Historic Preservation / Environmental
Private Not-for-Profits
Contractors and Vendors
Mapping Professionals
Hazard Types: Tsunami
Tornado
Mudslide/Landslide
Technological
Terrorism
Industry Hardship
Hurricane/Tropical Storm
Chemical/Biological
Extreme Temperatures
Flooding
Virus Threat
Drought
Dam/Levee Break
Wildfire
Earthquake
Severe Storm
Coastal Storm
Typhoon
Winter Storm
Fire
Volcano
Nuclear
Subjects: Documents for Public Review and Comment
Sustainable Development and Environmental Considerations
Last Update Date: 09/21/2007 12:02 AM new Draggable('2783', {revert:true});
Media Type: File Availability: Online
Custom CD/DVDLanguage: English
Resource File: View / Download / Print (pdf 445K)
508 Accessible Format: View / Download / Print (txt 137K)
Risk MAP FY 2011 Report to Congress
“FEMA's Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) Fiscal Year 2011 Report to Congress,” dated March 15, 2011, provides an update on FEMA's strategic approach, program budget and measures, and implementation for Risk MAP. FEMA encourages feedback from National Flood Insurance Program and other Risk MAP stakeholders on the strategic approach and implementation outlined in this document. Interested parties with questions pertaining to specific Risk MAP projects, including flood mapping updates, are encouraged to contact their local and State officials, who are working with their local FEMA Regional Office. Comments or questions regarding the Report to Congress can be e-mailed to FEMA-RiskMaps@dhs.gov. FEMA will not provide individual replies to comments, but all feedback will be considered in FEMA's implementation of Risk MAP. Resource Type: Document / Report The Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act) Public Law 107-174
On May 15, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act or No FEAR Act. The Act increased accountability of Federal Departments and Agencies for acts of discrimination or reprisal against employees resulting from whistleblower complaints, and complaints before the Merit Systems Protection Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Under Title III of the Act, departments and agencies are required to post on their public web sites, summary statistical data relating to equal employment opportunity complaints filed against the department or agency.
Both the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA will post to the respective public web sites statistical information in accordance with the No FEAR Act. This data will be updated on a quarterly basis for the current fiscal year.
For further information, please contact the Office of Equal Rights.
- Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 ( PDF 52KB)
- OPM Regulations for Title II of No Fear
- EEOC Regulations for Title III of No Fear
- EEOC.gov - Federal Sector
- No Fear Act Data
Equal Rights Officer Cadre
The Equal Rights Officer (ERO) cadre is a diverse group composed of persons with backgrounds in such fields as EEO, Civil Rights, human resources management, conflict resolution, and community organization. They serve on the direct staff of the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) at the Disaster Field Office (DFO). EROs receive both classroom instruction and mentoring in the field before deploying independently.
The ERO cadre offers the following services:
Civil Rights Resolution - Works proactively with Community Relations, Public Affairs, Human Services, and other DFO components to resolve individual or group Civil Rights issues; visits and speaks with key community leaders and organizations; assesses accessibility at Disaster Recovery Centers and distributes information about OER programs.
Technical Assistance and Training - Provides advice and guidance to the FCO on EEO and Civil Rights matters; presents training on sexual harassment prevention, cultural diversity, and the EEO process.
EEO Counseling - assists FEMA employees, employment applicants, and managers to resolve problems quickly; guides supervisors through downsizing to achieve the best possible outcome; processes all complaints that cannot be resolved informally.
The job of the ERO often is described as "providing mitigation for people." Just as FEMA works with individuals and communities to avoid or lessen the impact of natural hazards, so EROs work proactively to mitigate current and future people problems.
For more information on the ERO Cadre, please view the document below.
Equal Rights Officer Cadre ( PDF 12KB)
NIC
Sort By: Title Issuance Date Revision Date
Total Documents: 8 Page 1 of 1
National Incident Management System (March 2004) (current) Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Doc_March_2004l.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011 Issuance Date: 2004-03-01 Revision Date: 2004-03-01
National Incident Management System (April 2008) (proposed) Type: Significant Policy Document File: National_Incident_Mgmt_System__proposed__April_2008.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0008 Issuance Date: 2008-04-23 Revision Date: 2008-04-23
Fact Sheet: NIMS Implementation Activities for Hospitals and Healthcare Systems Type: Significant Policy Document File: Fact_Sheet_-_NIMS_Imp_Activities_for_Hosp_and_Healthcare_Systems.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011 Issuance Date: 2006-09-12 Revision Date: 2006-09-12
NIMS Implementation Activities for Hospital and Healthcare Systems Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Implementation_Activities_for_Hosp_and_Healthcare_Systems.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011 Issuance Date: 2006-09-12 Revision Date: 2006-09-12
NIMS Implementation Matrix for Tribal and Local Jurisdictions (10/1/06 to 9/30/07) Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Implementation_Matrix_for_Tribal_and_Local_Juris_Oct_06_-_Sept_07.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011 Issuance Date: 2007-12-07 Revision Date: 2007-12-07
NIMS Implementation Matrix for State and Territories (10/1/06 to 9/30/07) Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Implementation_Matrix_for_States_and_Territories_Oct_06_-_Sept_07.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011 Issuance Date: 2007-12-07 Revision Date: 2007-12-07
FY 2007 NIMS Compliance Metrics Guide for States and Territories Type: Significant Policy Document File: fy07_comp_guide_st.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011 Issuance Date: 2007-04-07 Revision Date: 2007-04-07
FY 2007 NIMS Compliance Metrics Guide for Tribal Nations and Local Governments Type: Significant Policy Document File: fy07_comp_guide_tl.pdf Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011 Issuance Date: 2007-04-07 Revision Date: 2007-04-07
State of California
- Overview
- Federal Environmental Requirements and Agencies
- State of California Environmental Requirements and Agencies
- Environmental Issues
- Historic and Cultural Preservation Issues
- Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for California
- Programmatic Section 7 Consultations for California
- Programmatic Historic Preservation Agreement for California
Overview
California is located on the west coast of the mainland United States, and borders the RIX states of Nevada and Arizona. The time zone in California is UTC/GMT-8, with Daylight Savings Time.
Recent disasters included severe storms, flooding, landslides, mudslides, debris flow, levee breaks, and wildfires that destroyed forests infested with bark beetles.
California is particularly susceptible to earthquakes . With 33 million people, California is the country's most populous state. Densely populated coastal cities located on faults are at special risk.
Sacramento, the state capital, is located in north central California. The FEMA Region IX office is located in Oakland. Semi-permanent Joint (FEMA-State-Tribal) Field Offices (JFOs) are located in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento, and in Pasadena, as needed.
Federal Environmental Requirements and Agencies
Compliance with the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws is required for obligation of FEMA funds. FEMA's Region 9 Environmental Office consults with the following agencies and others as needed:
- US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services and map- National Marine Fisheries Services
NMFS Southwest Regional Office- Advisory Council for Historic Preservation/State Historic Preservation Office
- US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Three USACE Districts serve California: Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The USACE issues permits for activities affecting waters of the United States.
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Region 9)
- USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
State of California Environmental Requirements and Agencies
The State of California is responsible for compliance with State laws and regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following are links to helpful state agencies and resources for environmental compliance:
- Office of Emergency Services (OES). OES/Environmental Office assures compliance with CEQA.
- State Department of Fish and Game
- State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
- State Department of Water Resources
- State Department of Conservation
Environmental Issues
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for implementing the Endangered Species Act .
The 307 federally-listed threatened and endangered species in California include: red-legged frog, garter snake, Baker's larkspur, clapper rail, condor, salt marsh harvest mouse, and showy Indian clover.Salmon and steelhead, and habitat in many streams, are a priority for both services.
Historic and Cultural Preservation Issues
There are more federally recognized Native American tribes in California than in any other State.
Every county and nearly every town in California has sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places .
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for California
Many Project Worksheets prepared in California disasters (under FEMA's Public Assistance Program) are of such scale and complexity that they would require preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). Most actions proposed for FEMA funding in California can be grouped by type of action or location, and evaluated in a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) without the need to develop a time-consuming, stand- alone EA for each project.
FEMA RIX has developed a PEA to facilitate FEMA's compliance with NEPA. The PEA provides a framework to address the impacts of projects funded in response to flood, earthquake, fires, rain and wind. The Programmatic approach helps expedite the environmental review and the receipt of federal funds.
Programmatic Section 7 Consultations for California
FEMA RIX has negotiated Programmatic Biological Assessments to streamline coordination with the federal wildlife agencies (NMFS and USFWS).
Programmatic Historic Preservation Agreement for California
The Programmatic Agreement between FEMA, the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) helps expedite the review of projects proposed for FEMA funding that could affect historic properties, such as those involving the repair, restoration and replacement of public infrastructure.
Attachment A
When a change in reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions or a remedy occurs at any time after a Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed (including a change that occurs after construction has been completed) and there is an anticipated use of Fund money, Regions should consult with the Assessment and Remediation Division (ARD) in the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and should be prepared to discuss the questions below and provide other information as appropriate. For Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) lead sites, Regions also should coordinate with the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) as to whether additional Agency costs can be recovered and other related enforcement issues. The Region should consider a number offactors in evaluating whether it would be appropriate to pursue a change in the land use or selected remedy. These include, but are not limited to:
1.
Is the potential change in the reasonably anticipated future land use consistent with the Region's analysis of the remedy selected in the ROD? For example, would the remedy remain protective of human health and the environment in light of the potential change in anticipated future land use? Is a new risk assessment needed to estimate potential risks to human health and the environment due to the proposed changes?
2.
Does the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use appear reasonable and feasible? If the potential change occurs after the remedy is constructed, is the proposed use compatible with the existing remedy (including ICs), or is additional work needed? If so, who will be responsible for the additional costs?
3.
Does the potential change in anticipated future land use affect any of the nine NCP criteria used to evaluate alternatives? (e.g., long-term effectiveness may be improved by certain types ofreuse that help preserve the integrity of remedy).
4.
How have the affected communities (including environmental justice communities) and other stakeholders been involved in identifying the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use? Are there conflicting views about the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use?
5.
Does new, reliable, and up-to-date information support are-evaluation of the assumptions regarding reasonably anticipated future land use made by the Region previously in the ROD? Was the new proposed reasonably anticipated future land use identified and rejected previously in the CERCLA remedy selection process? Ifso, does new information or a change in circumstances justify a re-examination of the issue?
6.
What is the potential financial impact on the Agency's budget associated with modifying the remedial action based on the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use? What is the estimated cost of revising already-prepared analys is and documents, modifying, terminating or re-implementing ICs? Does the potential change in land use present long·term savings through, for example, reduced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) requirements, fewer Ies that require monitoring, etc.?
7.
At a Fund-lead site, could any additional expense be characterized as a prohibited enhancement or betterment?
8.
At a PRP-Iead site, is the PRP or other private party (e.g., a bona fide prospective purchaser) willing to assume any additional cost that might be associated with modifying the selected remedy based on a new anticipated future land use assumption? Has the PRP or other private party provided sufficient, reasonably reliable financial assurance to ensure completion of any revised remedial action?
9.
Is the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use designed primarily to position a site for more stringent cleanup or a less stringent cleanup?
ICs should be carefully evaluated, selected, and narrowly tailored to meet the cleanup objectives. J7 It is important that site managers involve the appropriate local government agencies in discussions on the types ofcontrols that are being considered as early in the remedial process as possible. Local government officials can offer valuable information on the land use controls available in their jurisdiction and may offer creative solutions that protect human health and the environment while also protecting other local stakeholder interests. Discussions with the local government and community give the Regions the opportunity to identify whether a particular stakeholder group may be affected as a result ofa proposed Ie or to determine if the community has special needs in regard to an IC. In addition, discussions with individuals living on or near a site may reveal information regarding the potential efficacy of an IC. It may also be possible to provide technical assistance to the community so they can obtain a technical expert to assist them in evaluating Ies and the overall remedy.
The site manager should ensure that there is a process that routinely and critically evaluates the lCs to determine: (1) whether the mechanism remains in place; and (2) whether the ICs are providing the protection required by the remedy. This is routinely carried out through Institutional Control Implementation Plans with monitoring schedules and through statutory Five-Year Reviews.
Regions should take into account reasonably anticipated future land uses when selecting ICs and drafting the specific IC requirements and evaluating which Ie instruments may be best to achieve the IC objectives. For example, putting in place ICs that require the prior approval of the state environmental agency in addition to the local government prior to any disturbance ofa remedy may help to limit the activities that may compromise the remedy and/or result in exposures to humans. The Ie may, however~ allow for other uses of the site that do not negatively affect remedy protectiveness (e.g., prohibit heavy machinery usage on or near the remedy, while allowing light recreational uses, such as soccer fields).
Depending on the type of IC, there are different recommendations on how to enforce them. For governmental controls (e.g., zoning, permitting, etc.), EPA may encourage the local government to enter into agreements with the responsible parties and other stakeholders to memorialize various Ie commitments, such as monitoring them periodically, correcting breaches, etc. For proprietary controls (e.g., restrictive covenants), EPA can refer violations to the Department ofJustice or to a State's environmental agency to take action in federal or state court. For enforcement tools (e.g., consent decrees), EPA can use CERCLA or other cleanup authority to enforce the restrictions defined in these documents. Finally, information devices (e.g., placement of warning signs, fishing restrictions, registries, etc.) are not easily enforced by the EPA, but some states can enforce the placement of notices and some states can require that allies be placed in the state registry.
17 "Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Action Cleanups," EPA-540-F-OO-005, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, September 2000. Available at: http://epa.gov/supcrfundlpolicy/ic/guidelguide.pdf.
II
47.079 -- International Science and Engineering (OISE) Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC)
CONTACTS
Name Dir/Div Name Dir/Div Enriqueta C. Barrera GEO/EAR Paul Bishop ENG/CBET Cheryl Eavey SBE/SES Bruce Hamilton ENG/EFRI Robert O'Connor SBE/SES Thomas Torgersen GEO/EAR Saran Twombly BIO/DEB Kathleen Weathers
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Solicitation 10-524SYNOPSIS
One of the most urgent challenges facing the world today is ensuring an adequate supply and quality of water in light of both burgeoning human needs and climate variability and change. Despite its importance to life on Earth, there are major gaps in our basic understanding of water availability, quality and dynamics, and the impact of both a changing and variable climate, and human activity, on the water system. The goal of the Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC) solicitation is to understand and predict the interactions between the water system and climate change, land use, the built environment, and ecosystem function and services through place-based research and integrative models. Studies of the water system using observations at specific sites in combination with models that allow for spatial and temporal extrapolation to other regions, as well as integration across the different processes in that system are encouraged, especially to the extent that they advance the development of theoretical frameworks and predictive understanding. Specific topics of interest include:
- Determining the inputs, outputs, and potential changes in water budgets in response to both climate variability and change, and human activity, and the effect of these changes on biogeochemical cycles, water quality, long-term chemical transport and transformation, terrestrial, aquatic and coastal ecosystems, landscape evolution and human settlements and behavior.
- Developing theoretical frameworks and models that incorporate the linkages and feedbacks among atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic, oceanic, and social processes that can be used to predict the potential impact of climate variability and change, land use and human activity on water systems on decadal to centennial scales in order to provide a basis for adaptive management of water resources.
- Determining how our built water systems and our governance systems can be made more reliable, resilient and sustainable to meet diverse and often conflicting needs, such as minimizing consumption of water for energy generation, industrial and agricultural production and built environment requirements, reuse for both potable and non-potable needs, ecosystem protection, and flood control and storm water management.
Proposals may establish new observational sites or utilize existing sites and facilities already supported by NSF or other federal and state agencies (e.g. USEPA, USGS).
Proposals that do not broadly integrate across the biological sciences, engineering, geosciences, and social sciences may be returned without review. Successful proposals are expected to study water systems in their entirety and to enable a new interdisciplinary paradigm in water research.
Program Information
Program Number/Title (010): 15.648 Central Valley Project Improvement (CVPI) Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) Popular Name (020): (CVPI, AFRP) Federal Agency (030): Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior Authorization (040): Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 34, Public Law 102-575; Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, Public Law 97-258, 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308. Objectives (050): (a) To protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins of California; (b) To address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitats; (c) To improve the operational flexibility of the Central Valley Project; (d) To increase water-related benefits provided by the Central Valley Project to the State of California through expanded use of voluntary water transfers and improved water conservation; (e) To contribute to the State of California's interim and long-term efforts to protect the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; (f) To achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and industrial and power contractors. Types of Assistance (060): PROJECT GRANTS Uses and Use Restrictions (070): Funds may be used for research to improve management and increase Anadromous fish resources; spawning area improvement; installation of fish passages; construction of fish protection devices, and data collection. Eligibility Requirements (080) Applicant Eligibility (081): Applicants may be State, local governments, Native American Organizations, other public nonprofit institutions/organizations, private nonprofit/organization. No other Federal agency may apply. Beneficiary Eligibility (082): General public. Credentials/Documentation (083): No Credentials or documentation are required. OMB Circular No. A-87 applies to this program. Application and Award Process (090) Preapplication Coordination (091): Preapplication coordination is not applicable. Environmental impact information is not required for this program. This program is excluded from coverage under E.O. 12372. Application Procedures (092): OMB Circular No. A-102 applies to this program. OMB Circular No. A-110 applies to this program. The application should include the project proposal and be submitted through Grants.gov. The proposal contains the narrative description and budgetary information of the project. Only information that is pertinent to the project should be included. The project proposal should also indicate whether partial funding of the project is practicable, and, if so, what specific portion(s) of the project could be implemented with what level of funding. A project proposal that is part of a longer term initiative will be considered, however, the proposed project's objectives, benefits, and tasks must stand on their own, as there are no assurances that additional funding would be awarded in subsequent years for associated or complementary projects. An incomplete proposal will not be considered for funding. Award Procedure (093): The successful applicant will be notified after selection and confirmation of available funding. An applicant should not initiate a project in expectation of USFWS funding, nor should they purchase materials or begin work until such time as they receive the final award document signed by an authorized Service official. Deadlines (094): Contact the headquarters or regional office, as appropriate, for application deadlines. Range of Approval/Disapproval Time (095): Awards are anticipated within 90 days or less. Appeals (096): Contact the headquarters or regional office. Renewals (097): Contact the headquarters or regional office. Assistance Consideration (100) Formula and Matching Requirements (101): Statutory formulas are not applicable to this program.
Matching Requirements: The matching requirement is based on the project. For specific information see the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Section 3406 Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Restoration.
MOE requirements are not applicable to this program. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance (102): Project awards are generally from one to five years, depending on the complexity of the project and availability of funds. The five year restriction on the length of time is due to the Period of Availability of Funds limited to the five (5) year rule. See the following for information on how assistance is awarded/released: Contact the headquarters or regional office. Post Assistance Requirements (110) Reports (111): Program reports are not applicable. Cash reports are not applicable. Progress reports are not applicable. “Recipients may be required to complete and submit a Federal Financial Report (SF-425).”. Performance monitoring is not applicable. Audits (112): In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations," 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 (113): Records are required to be maintained for three years following submission of the final expenditure report. Financial Information (120) Account Identification (121): 14-1611-0-1-302. Obligations (122): (Project Grants) FY 09 $8,800,000; FY 10 $9,000,000; FY 11 $9,000,000 Range and Average of Financial Assistance (123): No Data Available. Program Accomplishments (130): Fiscal Year 2010: No Current Data Available Fiscal Year 2011: anticipated: No Update. Fiscal Year 2012: No Current Data Available Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature (140): None. Information Contacts (150) Regional or Local Office (151) : See Regional Agency Offices. Potential applicants may contact the local office at: Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Stockton Fish and Wildlife Service Office 4001 N. Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205. Telephone: (209) 946-6400, Fax (209) 946-6355. Headquarters Office (152): Ren Lohoefner, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, California 95825 Phone: (916) 414-6464 Fax: (916) 414-6464. Website Address (153): http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/title34.asp#top . Related Programs (160): Not Applicable. Examples of Funded Projects (170): Fiscal Year 2010: No Current Data Available Fiscal Year 2011: anticipated. Fiscal Year 2012: No Current Data Available Criteria for Selecting Proposals (180): Proposals will be reviewed by a team of Federal staff based on the following criteria: Addresses high priority need as described in the Request for Proposal (RFP) "Purposes and Funding Priorities"; Clearly stated goals, objectives, hypotheses, and relevance of idea; Approach is valid and technically sound; Primary Investigators and/or subcontractors record of performance and expertise; Budget is reasonable and provides good value for funds requested; and Cost sharing or in-kind contributions.
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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 14
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) 03/21/2011 13 Filed (ECF) Appellees State of California and USA response supporting motion (,motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Date of service: 03/21/2011. [7688265] (JMP) 03/31/2011 14 Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Stipulated Motion for miscellaneous relief [Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order Amending Notice of Appeal ]. Date of service: 03/31/2011. [7700600] (MWP) 03/31/2011 15 Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Correspondence: Letter re Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order. Date of service: 03/31/2011 [7700607] (MWP) 04/15/2011 16 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner) The stipulated motion to amend the notice of appeal filed on February 14, 2011 (the “Stipulated Motion”) is granted. The reference to “the orders made December 8, 2000, relating to the consent decree, including the order dismissing defendants' cross-claims” is deleted from the notice of appeal. Pursuant to the Stipulated Motion, appellee Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s (“Bayer”) motion to dismiss, motion for sanctions, and opposition to appellants' motion to withdraw as counsel, and the joint response in support of Bayer's motion to dismiss filed by appellees State of California and the United States are deemed withdrawn. The motion of appellants' retained counsel, William A. Logan, Esq. and Logan and Giles LLP, to withdraw as retained counsel of record is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the following address for appellants T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.: P. O. Box 992867, Redding, CA 96099, (530) 275-4550. A corporation must be represented by counsel. See In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972). Within 28 days after the date of this order, appellants Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.'s new counsel shall file a notice of appearance with the court. A new briefing schedule shall be established upon compliance with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. (MOATT) [7718808] (DEV) 04/15/2011 17 Terminated William A. Logan Jr. for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and T. W. Arman in 11-15383, Anthony Giles for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and T. W. Arman in 11-15383 [7718868] (DEV) 04/20/2011 18 Received notice regarding From Logan & Giles proof of service to former client of the 4/15/11 order.. [7724171] (MT)
Damien M. Schiff
Attorney
Pacific Legal Foundation
dms@pacificlegal.org
(916) 419-7111
Ex. Ord. No. 12962. Recreational Fisheries Ex. Ord. No. 12962, June 7, 1995, 60 F.R. 30769, provided: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-d, and e-j), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), and other pertinent statutes, and in order to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide, it is ordered as follows: Section 1. Federal Agency Duties. Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes, improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities by: (a) developing and encouraging partnerships between governments and the private sector to advance aquatic resource conservation and enhance recreational fishing opportunities; (b) identifying recreational fishing opportunities that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation and promoting restoration to support viable, healthy, and, where feasible, self-sustaining recreational fisheries; (c) fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors to benefit recreational fisheries; (d) providing access to and promoting awareness of opportunities for public participation and enjoyment of U.S. recreational fishery resources; (e) supporting outreach programs designed to stimulate angler participation in the conservation and restoration of aquatic systems; (f) implementing laws under their purview in a manner that will conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries; (g) establishing cost-share programs, under existing authorities, that match or exceed Federal funds with nonfederal contributions; (h) evaluating the effects of Federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this order; and (i) assisting private landowners to conserve and enhance aquatic resources on their lands. Sec. 2. National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council. A National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council (``Coordination Council'') is hereby established. The Coordination Council shall consist of seven members, one member designated by each of the following Secretaries--Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Defense--and one by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Coordination Council shall: (a) ensure that the social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries are considered by Federal agencies in the course of their actions; (b) reduce duplicative and cost-inefficient programs among Federal agencies involved in conserving or managing recreational fisheries; (c) share the latest resource information and management technologies to assist in the conservation and management of recreational fisheries; (d) assess the implementation of the Conservation Plan required under section 3 of this order; and (e) develop a biennial report of accomplishments of the Conservation Plan. The representatives designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall cochair the Coordination Council. Sec. 3. Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan. (a) Within 12 months of the date of this order, the Coordination Council, in cooperation with Federal agencies, States, and Tribes, and after consulting with the Federally chartered Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, shall develop a comprehensive Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan (``Conservation Plan''). (b) The Conservation Plan will set forth a 5-year agenda for Federal agencies identified by the Coordination Council. In so doing, the Conservation Plan will establish, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable; (1) measurable objectives to conserve and restore aquatic systems that support viable and healthy recreational fishery resources, (2) actions to be taken by the identified Federal agencies, (3) a method of ensuring the accountability of such Federal agencies, and (4) a comprehensive mechanism to evaluate achievements. The Conservation Plan will, to the extent practicable, be integrated with existing plans and programs, reduce duplication, and will include recommended actions for cooperation with States, Tribes, conservation groups, and the recreational fisheries community. Sec. 4. Joint Policy for Administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All Federal agencies will aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (``ESA'') (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service will promote compatibility and reduce conflicts between the administration of the ESA and recreational fisheries by developing a joint agency policy that will; (1) ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two agencies, (2) promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries managers, and (3) improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA. Sec. 5. Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. To assist in the implementation of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall expand the role of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council to: (a) monitor specific Federal activities affecting aquatic systems and the recreational fisheries they support; (b) review and evaluate the relation of Federal policies and activities to the status and conditions of recreational fishery resources; and (c) prepare an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations for submission to the Coordination Council. Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and it is not intended to create any right, benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person. William J. Clinton.
[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)] [Notices] [Page 74045-74046] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no10-78] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0894; FRL-9233-7] Guidance on Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is interested in soliciting individual stakeholder input regarding the issues addressed in the EPA interim final guidance, titled Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites. The Agency will consider the information gathered from this notice and other sources before finalizing this guidance. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2011, 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2010-0894 by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov Fax: (202) 566-9744 Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room; EPA West Building, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND- 2010-0894. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any [[Page 74046]] personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or superfund.docket@epa.gov . The http:// www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm . Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund docket is (202) 566-0276. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chip Love, phone: (703) 603-0695, e- mail: love.chip@epa.gov , Construction and Post Construction Management Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA's interim final guidance on Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites addresses some of the common issues that may be encountered during the cleanup process and provides recommendations on how ICs can complement other response actions (such as engineered response action components) at a site. This interim final guidance also provides an overview of EPA's policy regarding the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the various aspects of planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional controls. The guidance is available at http:// www.regulations.gov . This guidance does not represent a regulation, and is not subject to the formal provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. However, EPA recognizes the potential importance of this guidance to its Federal, state, local, and tribal partners, to the regulated community, and to the public, and therefore through this Federal Register notice seeks public input on the topics addressed in this interim final guidance and its implementation. This public input opportunity will be available until January 14, 2011. EPA intends to evaluate whether any changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate and expects to issue a final version of this guidance. For purposes of this Federal Register notice, EPA in particular seeks input on the following: Are there ways EPA can better evaluate the capacity, willingness, and financial assurance of state, tribal and local governments to assist with ICs and engineering controls when such controls are necessary at a site? What potential barriers exist with respect to state, local, and tribal government involvement with ICs and what tools or possible solutions could EPA promote to improve the awareness of and involvement in IC activities? How can site managers better engage and involve affected community stakeholders and local land use decision-makers concerning ICs that may be needed and relied upon to complement other response actions (i.e., engineered response action components) at cleanup sites? How can information concerning ICs and the underlying land and/or resource use restrictions be made more available to local land use decision-makers? How can EPA better identify and account for the full life cycle costs of ICs? EPA intends to accept input on the interim final guidance until January 14, 2011. EPA also intends to fully consider all public input in evaluating whether changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate, and to issue a final version of this guidance. Dated: November 23, 2010. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 2010-30111 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
"I cannot believe that the historic powers of our courts . . . or the rights of citizens, confirmed as these have been for so long by an unbroken line of decisions, have been or can be overthrown and subverted, merely by the fact that the question of the court's power to issue the order violated may be doubtful and not merely frivolous. . . ." (67 S.Ct. 726, 91 L.Ed. 945.) (See also 60 Harv. L. Rev. 811, noting the weak background of authority supporting the doctrine and discussing the policies for and against it; 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1569; 76 Harv. L. Rev. 106.)
What is Environmental Justice?
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
Polluters Get Stimulus Funds, Escape Environmental Oversight
By Jessica Roberts on November 30, 2010
Billions of dollars in stimulus funds from the Obama administration, designed to promote clean energy and create jobs, have been doled out to some of the nation's biggest polluters while exempting them from basic environmental oversight, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity .
Regulatory Flexibility Act / Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA)
- You are here: EPA Home
- RFA / SBREFA
- Small Business Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Small Business Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
- What is the implication of the proposed rulemaking on small entities?
- What is a Small Business Advocacy Panel?
- How can I get involved?
- Who should I contact?
Office of Regulatory Policy and Management | Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation | RFA/SBREFA Home
Local Navigation
- RFA/SBREFA Home
- Small Businesses
- Small Governments
- Small Organizations
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Documents
- Links
- Who Are We?
- RFA/SBREFA Statute
Nationally acclaimed scientist Wilma Subra agrees that the process lacks valid community participation. “Complete, adequate, timely and on-going community participation in the Superfund Remedial process is desperately needed.” According to Dr. Subra, “The current process exposes the community to unacceptable risks.”
“We need full and equitable community oversight and involvement in the remediation process to ensure our own health and protection.” says Marie Harrison of Greenaction.
McCollum sues the feds over new water rules
Flanked by the incoming attorney general and incoming agriculture commission, Attorney General Bill McCollum announced Tuesday that the state is suing the federal government for imposing an "unfair" and "capricious" water quality rule.
The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Pensacola, alleges that the rule by the federal Environmental Protection Agency is "not based on scientifically sound methodology" and were adopted "just to settle a lawsuit" by environmental groups and citizens.
Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi and the newly-elected Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam said they will continue to lawsuit because they view the newly announced rules a violation of Florida's rights.
The federal government announced in November new water pollution standards that set specific numeric caps on pollutant levels for Florida lakes and rivers. Earthjustice attorney David Guest , who filed the original lawsuit against the federal government for failing to enforce the federal Clean Water Act, said the challenged by the Republican attorney general on behalf of landowners and agricultural interests was expected.
"The lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars,'' Guest said in a statement. "Instead of protecting public health, the state is usuing our tax dollars to side with polluters."He said that the standards are designed to keep "poorly treated sewage, fertilizer and animal waste out of public waters."
But Putnam, and current Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson , said that the new rules will be too expensive.
"It's going to cost the taxpayerse of this state billions and billions,'' Bronson said. He said the rules appeared to single out Florida for toughter water quality standards than other state and were based on inaccurate science.
The suit was filed in the same court that McCollum hand selected for another lawsuit against the federal government, the state's challenge to the federal health care reform plan.
Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/12/mccollum-sues-the-feds-over-new-water-rules.html#ixzz17VQxCNI3Regulators raid AstraZeneca and Nycomed | Find Prescription Drugs
By admin
Regulators raid AstraZeneca and Nycomed European antitrust regulators have launched a fresh series of raids this week on pharmaceutical companies, including.Florida sues EPA over new water pollution controls
MIAMI (Reuters) - Florida filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to block new water pollution controls in the recession-hit state.
All Appropriate Inquiries
You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.
General Information
- Fact Sheet on EPA Brownfields Grants, CERCLA Liability, and All Appropriate Inquiries (PDF) (3 pp, 191K)
- The Final Rule on All Appropriate Inquiries
- Response to Public Comments
- Comparison of Final Rule to Interim Standard (ASTM E1527-00)
- Background
- The Proposed Rule
- FACA Committee Information
- Summary of EPA Listening Session on All Appropriate Inquiries Rule (PDF) (31 pp, 1.1M)
On March 17, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency held a listening session on EPA's All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule, as promulgated on November 1, 2005. The purpose of the March 17 listening session was for EPA to listen to the views of stakeholders and the general public on the current standards and practices for all appropriate inquiries. A summary of the discussions held during the listening session that includes copies of written comments that EPA received in response to the listening session is attached here.
- Fact Sheet on EPA Brownfields Grants, CERCLA Liability, and All Appropriate Inquiries (PDF) (3 pp, 191K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-09-026
April 2009
- EPA Recognizes Two ASTM Standards as Compliant with All Appropriate Inquiries
EPA now recognizes both ASTM International's E1527-05 "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process" and ASTM E2247-08 "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland and Rural Property" as compliant with the All Appropriate Inquiries Regulation. Either of these ASTM International Phase I standards may be used to satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
- EPA Published Final Rule on All Appropriate Inquiries
The Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule setting federal standards for the conduct of all appropriate inquiries. The rule was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005. The final rule and preamble is available below.
The final rule establishes specific regulatory requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership, uses, and environmental conditions of a property for the purposes of qualifying for certain landowner liability protections under CERCLA. The final rule went into effect on November 1, 2006, one year following the date of publication.
As of November 1, 2006, parties must comply with the requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule, or follow the standards set forth in the ASTM E1527-05 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, to satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries. All appropriate inquiries must be conducted in compliance with either of these standards to obtain protection from potential liability under CERCLA as an innocent landowner, a contiguous property owner, or a bona fide prospective purchaser.
- Federal Register Notice
November 1, 2005
- Fact Sheet on All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule (PDF) (2 pgs, 113K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-05-240
November 2005
- En Español (PDF) (2 pgs, 302K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-07-209
June 2007
- Fact Sheet on Lender Liability and Applicability of AAI (PDF) (2 pgs, 29.8K) ]
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-07-234
April 2007
- Fact Sheet on Definition of Environmental Professional included in the Final Rule (PDF) (2 pgs, 106K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-05-2401
November 2005
- En Español (PDF) (2 pgs, 296K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-07-210
June 2007
- Fact Sheet on Guidelines for Hiring an Environmental Professional (PDF) (2 pgs, 38K)
Publication Number: EPA-560-F-06-243
October 2006
- Fact Sheet on AAI Reporting Requirements (PDF) (4 pgs, 46K)
Publication Number: EPA 560- F-06-244
October 2006
- Response to Public Comments
The preamble to the final rule setting federal standards for the conduct of all appropriate inquiries includes a summary of the public comments received in response to the proposed rule, which was published on August 26, 2004 (see below for information on the proposed rule). The preamble to the final rule also includes a summary of EPA's responses to many of the issues raised in public comments. Specific responses to individual comments are provided in the document "Response to Comment Document," October 2005.
- Response to Comment Document, October 2005
- Part 1 (PDF) (380 pgs, 1.9MB)
- Part 2 (PDF) (321 pgs, 1.4MB)
- Part 3 (PDF) (120 pgs, 584K)
- Comparison of Final Rule to Interim Standard (ASTM E1527-00)
The new final regulation is not significantly different from the interim standard established by Congress in the Brownfields Amendments to CERCLA. The interim standard was the ASTM E1527-00 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The final rule differs in such areas as the definition of environmental professional, certain interviewing requirements, and the documentation of data gaps that may affect an environmental professional's ability to render an opinion regarding the environmental conditions of a property. A comparison of the requirements established in the final rule and the requirements of the interim standard are provided in a document titled "Comparison of the Final All Appropriate Inquiries Standard and the ASTM E1527-00 Environmental Site Assessment Standard."
- Comparison of the Final All Appropriate Inquiries Standard and the ASTM E1527-00 Environmental Site Assessment Standard (PDF) (14 pgs, 227K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-05-242
November 2005
- Background
The Small Business Liability Relief and Revitalization Act (the Brownfields Amendments) clarifies CERCLA liability provisions for certain landowners and potential property owners. The Brownfields Amendments provide liability protections for certain property owners, if the property owners comply with specific provisions outlined in the statute, including conducting all appropriate inquiries into present and past uses of the property and the potential presence of environmental contamination on the property. The Brownfields Amendments amend Section 101(35)(B) of CERCLA and require EPA to promulgate regulations that establish federal standards and practices for conducting all appropriate inquiries. The all appropriate inquiries standards and practices are relevant to:
- the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability (§101 (35));
- the contiguous property exemption to CERCLA liability (§107 (q));
- the bona fide prospective purchaser exemption to CERCLA liability (§107 (r)(1) and (§101 (40)); and
- the brownfields site characterization and assessment grant programs (§104 (k)(2)).
All Appropriate Inquiries Statutory Language from the Small Business Liability Relief and Revitalization Act
- January 2002
All Appropriate Inquiries Criteria Analysis/Comparison to State, Federal, and Commercial Assessment Approaches (PDF) (168 pgs, 935K)
- Publication Number: EPA-500-F-03-229
June 10, 2003
EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Release date: 12/06/2010
Contact Information: Richard Yost, yost.richard@epa.gov, 202-564-7827, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites small businesses to participate in a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel on a proposed rule that would establish financial responsibility requirements for classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry. The requirements will help ensure that owners and operators of the facilities, not taxpayers, foot the bill for environmental cleanup.
The panel will ask a selected group of Small Entity Representatives (SERs), to provide advice and recommendations on the proposed rule to the panel. EPA seeks self-nominations directly from small entities that may be subject to the rule requirements. Self-nominations may be submitted through the link below and must be received by December 20, 2010.
The requirements will be developed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly called Superfund.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires EPA to establish a federal panel for rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBAR panel will include representatives from the Small Business Administration, the Office of Management and Budget and EPA.Small Business Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
- What is the implication of the proposed rulemaking on small entities?
- What is a Small Business Advocacy Panel?
- How can I get involved?
- Who should I contact?
What is the Implication of the Proposed Rulemaking on Small Entities?
Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, establishes certain regulatory authorities concerning financial responsibility requirements. Specifically, the statutory language addresses the promulgation of regulations that require classes of facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. EPA recognizes that financial responsibility is an important policy tool for ensuring that the clean-up of contaminated sites is not left as a burden for the public. In a July 28, 2009 Federal Register notice , EPA identified classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry as those for which the Agency will first develop financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
As discussed in that notice, EPA research indicates that the hard rock mining industry typically operates on a large scale, with releases of toxic chemicals to the environment and in some situations, subsequent exposure of humans, organisms, and ecosystems to hazardous substances on a similarly large scale. The metal mining industry released nearly 1.15 billion pounds of hazardous substances in 2007. The hard rock mining industry is responsible for polluting 3,400 miles of streams and 440,000 acres of land. Approximately 10,000 miles of rivers and streams may have been contaminated by acid mine drainage from the metal mining industry. The severity of consequences as a result of releases of and exposure to hazardous substances is evident in the enormous costs associated with past and projected future actions necessary to protect public health and the environment.
EPA's preliminary analyses currently show that approximately 298 companies (or 81% of the potentially regulated universe) are small entities.
What is a Small Business Advocacy Panel?
EPA is developing a proposed rule that would require financial responsibility for classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry. At this time, EPA is unable to determine the economic impact of our proposed rule. EPA is proceeding with formation of a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA) requires EPA to convene an SBAR Panel for a proposed rule unless the agency can certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Panel process offers an opportunity for small businesses, small governments, and small not-for-profit organizations (collectively referred to as small entities) to provide advice and recommendations to ensure that EPA carefully considers small entity concerns. The Panel itself is comprised of federal employees from EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. Small Entity Representatives (SERs) provide advice and recommendations to the Panel. Typically, EPA prefers that SERs be owner-operators of small businesses, small organization officials, or small government officials. Other representatives, such as trade associations that exclusively or at least primarily represent potentially regulated small entities, may serve as SERs. These other representatives are evaluated on a case by case basis.
Information about what constitutes a " small business " is available at the Small Business Administration's website . A " small government " is defined as a jurisdiction serving a population of 50,000 residents or fewer. A “ small organization ” is defined as any “not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” For purpose of this proposed rule, small businesses pertaining to mining except for oil and gas include any operator who employs fewer than 500 employees. This proposed rule may also affect primary metal manufacturers or processors with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) starting with 331. The criteria for small businesses for metal manufacturers or processors range from 500 to 1,000 employees depending on the six digit NAICS code. To learn more, review EPA's fact sheet, What Potential Small Entities Should Know About the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process (2009) (PDF) (4 pp, 19 K) .
How Can I Get Involved?
You may potentially be subject to this rulemaking and are eligible to serve as a Small Entity Representative (SER), if you are the owner or operator of a small hard rock mining facility. In the July 2009 notice, EPA defined hard rock mining to include classes of facilities that extract, beneficiate or process metals (e.g., copper, gold iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, silver, uranium, and zinc) and non-metallic, non-fuel minerals (e.g., asbestos, phosphate rock, and sulfur). EPA notes that certain non-fuel hard rock mining sectors (e.g. construction sand and gravel) were not included among those hard rock mining facilities identified in the notice. ( See Note 1. ) As mentioned above, other representatives that exclusively or at least primarily represent potentially regulated small entities may also serve as SERs, as well.
You may nominate yourself to serve as a SER by following the directions in the next section. Depending on the volume of responses, EPA may not be able to invite all qualified candidates to participate as SERs. Generally, SERs will be asked to review background information, listen to informational briefings, and provide oral and written advice and recommendations to the Panel. One face-to-face meeting is typically held with the SERs in Washington, DC; a toll-free conference line is provided for this meeting.
Additional information about the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act is available in the following fact sheet: What Small Entities Should Know About EPA and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (2009) (PDF) (4 pp, 20K) .
Who Should I Contact?
SERs must:
- be small and expect to be subject to requirements of the proposed rule; or
- represent potentially regulated small entities exclusively or at least primarily represent such entities (e.g., a trade association that exclusively or primarily represents small entities). Nominees such as these will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Individuals who are interested in potentially serving as a SER should send a message to RFA-SBREFA@epa.gov or call Sarah Dale ((202) 564-6998) by no later than 12/20/2010. In the message, please provide:
- your name;
- the name of your company, governmental jurisdiction, or not-for-profit organization;
- the size of your company, governmental jurisdiction, or not-for-profit organization;
- your address; and
- your contact information.
- USE THIS AS THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL: SER Self-Nomination for Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Please remember: Depending on the volume of responses, EPA may not be able to invite all qualified candidates to participate as SERs.
Environmental Interests
Information System Information System ID Environmental Interest Type Data Source Last Updated Date Supplemental Environmental Interests:
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY INFORMATION SYSTEM
CAD980498612 SUPERFUND NPL CERCLIS
INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SYSTEM 38045 FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION ICIS 09/13/2002 ICIS -09-2002-0078
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1987-0013
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1990-0018
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1997-0008
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1997-0157
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Additional EPA Reports:
MyEnvironment Cleanups in My Community Site Demographics Watershed Report
Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC)
Data Source SIC Code Description Primary
ICIS
1031
LEAD AND ZINC ORES
ICIS
1011
IRON ORES
ICIS
1021
COPPER ORES
Facility Codes and Flags
EPA Region: 09 Duns Number:
Congressional District Number: 02 Legislative District Number:
HUC Code/Watershed: 18020112 / SACRAMENTO-UPPER CLEAR
US Mexico Border Indicator: NO Federal Facility: NO Tribal Land: NO Alternative Names
Alternative Name Source of Data
I M M CERCLIS Organizations
No Organizations returned. National Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS)
Data Source NAICS Code Description Primary
FRS 212210 IRON ORE MINING.
FRS 212231 LEAD ORE AND ZINC ORE MINING.
FRS 212234 COPPER ORE AND NICKEL ORE MINING.
Facility Mailing Addresses
Affiliation Type Delivery Point City Name State Postal Code Information System
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR 75 HAWTHORNE STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 CERCLIS Contacts
Affiliation Type Full Name Office Phone Information System Mailing Address
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR
EUGENE RAINWATER
4159723217
CERCLIS
View
Query executed on: DEC-08-2010
Additional information for CERCLIS or TRI sites:This information resource is not maintained, managed, or owned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Envirofacts Support Team. Neither the EPA nor the Envirofacts Support Team is responsible for their content or site operation. The Envirofacts Warehouse provides this reference only as a convenience to our Internet users.
- National Library of Medicine (NLM) TOXMAP
Listed Water Information
CYCLE : 2006
Click here to see metadata for this report.
Cycle: 2006 State: CA List ID: CAL5244001220020730101915 Waterbody Name: KESWICK RESERVOIR (PORTION DOWNSTREAM FROM SPRING CREEK) State Basin Name: CENTRAL VALLEY Listed Water Map Link: Map Impaired Water
DELISTING FROM KESWICK TO COTTONWOOD SINCE MAY 2009 - TRUST WATER HABITATS OF THE UNITED STATES
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. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al., (EDCal No. S-91-0768 DFL/JFM)
Other Impaired Water 303(d) List Information
The most current report available for this water body is 2006.
Data are also available for these years: 2004 2002State List IDs:
Cycle State List ID
2002 CAL5244001220020730101915 2004 CAL5244001220020730101915 2006 CAL5244001220020730101915 State Impairments:
State Impairment Parent Impairment Priority Rank Targeted Flag Anticipated TMDL Submittal
CADMIUM METALS (OTHER THAN MERCURY)
SEP-30-2020 COPPER METALS (OTHER THAN MERCURY)
SEP-30-2020 ZINC METALS (OTHER THAN MERCURY)
SEP-30-2020 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Information:
There were no TMDLs reported to EPA by the state.Watershed Information:
Watershed Name Watershed States
SACRAMENTO-UPPER CLEAR CALIFORNIA Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet for Watershed
Sacramento-Upper ClearNumber of Waters listed by State for Watershed
State Name Waters on List Effective Listing Cycle
Total Number of Waters Listed: 3
CALIFORNIA 3 2006
Waters Listed By Waterbody
Waterbody Name Waterbody Type Waters on ListTotal Number of Listed Waters: 3
NOTE: Click on the underlined "Waters on List" value to see a listing of those waters. KESWICK RESERVOIR (PORTION DOWNSTREAM FROM SPRING CREEK) LAKE/RESERVOIR/POND 1 SPRING CREEK, LOWER (IRON MOUNTAIN MINE TO KESWICK RESERVOIR) STREAM/CREEK/RIVER 1 WILLOW CREEK (SHASTA COUNTY, BELOW GREENHORN MINE TO CLEAR CREEK) STREAM/CREEK/RIVER 1 Causes of Impairment
Impairment Name Causes of Impairment Reported Percent of ReportedTotal Number of Causes of Impairment Reported: 10
NOTE: Click on the underlined "Causes of Impairment Reported" value to see a listing of those waters with the impairment. COPPER 3 30.00 ZINC 3 30.00 ACID MINE DRAINAGE 2 20.00 CADMIUM 2 20.00 Approved TMDLs by Pollutants since October 1, 1995
There were no Approved TMDLs reported to EPA by the state for this watershed. EPA is in the process of collecting TMDL information from the states. Because these efforts are on-going, there may be additional approved TMDLs that were not found here.Approved TMDLS by EPA Fiscal Year (October 1 through September 30) since October 1, 1995
There were no Approved TMDLs reported to EPA by the state since October 1995.TMDL Document Search
Full Text Search of TMDL Documents is available here .Water | Wetlands, Oceans, Watersheds | Watershed Protection
Note
1. See memorandum to Record, from Stephen Hoffman, USEPA and Shahid Mahmud, USEPA. Re : Mining Classes Not Included in Identified Hard Rock Mining Classes of Facilities. June 2009.
David Weaver
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1600
david.s.weaver@nasa.gov
Dec. 6, 2010 RELEASE : 10-326 DOE and NASA Reach Cleanup Agreements with the State of California for the Santa Susana Field Laboratory WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy and NASA signed Administrative Orders on Consent (AOC) with the California Environmental Protection Agency today that define the process for the characterization and cleanup end-state of portions of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL).
The agreements come after more than 10 months of negotiations and extensive public comment on the conceptual framework for cleanup outlined in the Agreement in Principle and additional public comment on the legally enforceable process and procedures in the draft Administrative Order on Consent.
"By working closely with the State of California, we have reached an historic agreement that will allow the Department to carry out its important cleanup work and protect the health of both the surrounding community and the environment," Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said.
"NASA is pleased to join with the Department of Energy and the State of California in signing these agreements and will do its part to assist with the Santa Susanna cleanup," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "We are committed to working with these partners to address the environmental concerns at this former test site."
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said: "The landmark agreements announced today between NASA, the Department of Energy and the State of California are an important step toward real protection for families who live near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. For many years, I have strongly supported the state's and communities' efforts to ensure that a comprehensive cleanup is conducted at Santa Susana that protects the health of the public, including children and pregnant women. I am pleased that NASA and the Department of Energy have stepped up to the plate and agreed to clean up the Santa Susana site to the levels California has determined will provide the greatest protection to nearby communities."
DOE's agreement is a commitment to clean up Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of the SSFL to background levels for both chemical and radiological constituents.
DOE's AOC includes several key steps needed to reach the desired end-state of a cleanup to background.
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will determine the radiological background for each radionuclide based upon its on-going radiological background study.
- The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will determine the chemical background for each potential chemical constituent based upon its on-going chemical background study.
- The USEPA will determine, through the ongoing radiological characterization survey, the nature and extent of any remaining radiological contamination.
- DTSC will determine the nature and extent of any remaining chemical contamination based on the previously submitted chemical sampling results, results from co-locating samples with USEPA for chemical analysis, and any DTSC determined necessary additional sampling.
- A major component of the framework is the involvement of USEPA to serve as technical advisor to DTSC and DOE. USEPA will perform confirmatory sampling after DOE has completed cleanup to help ensure all cleanup goals have been met. USEPA also will approve for use DOE identified areas of backfill.
In addition to providing the legal framework for the agreement, the Administrative Order on Consent also outlines a process to address the court-ordered Environmental Impact Statement.
The Administrative Order on Consent can be found at:
Ruckelshaus saw some of the presidential papers from that era, including a Clean Water Act document on which Nixon had handwritten "bullshit" in a marginal note.
Florida Officials File Lawsuit Against EPA Over Federal Intrusion Into State's Clean Water Program
TALLAHASSEE, FL – Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, Agriculture
Commissioner Charles Bronson, Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi and
Agriculture Commissioner-elect Adam Putnam today announced that the State
of Florida has filed a lawsuit against the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency's intrusion into Florida's
previously approved clean water program.The lawsuit alleges that the EPA's action is inconsistent with the intent
of Congress when it based the Clean Water Act on the idea of cooperative
federalism whereby the States would be responsible for the control of
water quality with oversight by the EPA. Control of nutrient loading from
predominately non-point sources involves traditional States' rights and
responsibilities for water and land resource management which Congress
expressly intended to preserve in the Clean Water Act. It specifically
alleges that the EPA rule and the January 2009 necessity determination by
the EPA for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's waters
were arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and requests the
court to enjoin the EPA Administrator from implementing the numeric
criteria for Florida in the rule.“We all want clean water for Florida, and we all believe that
scientifically sound and responsible numeric nutrient criteria will
improve efforts to achieve this goal. Florida was in the process of
developing such criteria under an EPA-approved plan when the EPA decided
to preempt the state's plan,” said Attorney General McCollum. “The EPA
numeric nutrient rule and its proposed criteria are not based on
scientifically sound methodology, and were adopted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner just to settle a lawsuit. I appreciate the commitments
made by my successor, Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi, and the next
Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, to continue protecting Florida's
rights, citizens and waterways through this lawsuit.”“I have been concerned from the beginning that EPA's actions related to
numeric nutrient criteria in Florida waters were not based on factual,
verifiable science,” said Commissioner Bronson, who is a separately named
plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Florida has always been a leader in taking
steps necessary to improve water quality and I was disappointed that EPA
did not incorporate many of the state's suggestions on the proposed rule.
The final rule as written would place a severe financial burden on the
citizens of Florida while not necessarily improving the state's waters.
The action being taken today is unfortunate but necessary to ensure EPA
makes decisions affecting Floridians based on sound science. I am pleased
that Attorney General-elect Bondi and Agriculture Commissioner-elect
Putnam recognize the great importance of this issue and will continue to
protect our citizens from unnecessary and costly regulations.”“These new rules will have a drastic financial impact on local governments
and communities who are already working to comply with Florida's existing
standards under the Clean Water Act. Our communities cannot afford these
new regulations which may not, in the long run, result in any meaningful
improvements to our water quality beyond what our state has already
implemented,” said Attorney General-elect Bondi. “As Florida's next
Attorney General, I will continue this lawsuit and will stand up on behalf
of our citizens and our taxpayers.”“I am grateful to Attorney General McCollum and Commissioner Bronson for
their leadership, and I look forward to working with Attorney
General-Elect Bondi on this critically important issue. This regulation is
estimated to cost consumers and localities billions of dollars and, in
some cases, will require technology that may not be attainable,” said
Commissioner-elect Putnam. “While we all would have preferred to avoid
this litigation, this is but one strategy we will pursue to see that sound
science prevails. I am hopeful the end result of today's action will be
the continued protection and improvement of Florida waters in a way that
makes both scientific and economic sense. As Florida's next Commissioner
of Agriculture, I will make achieving that goal a top priority of my
Administration.”Prior to the EPA's announcement that it would be implementing new rules
for Florida, the state had been diligently working through its Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program to adopt numeric standards for impaired
bodies of water. The EPA had already approved Florida's program on the
basis that it was sufficient to meet the requirements of the Clean Water
Act, referenced in a letter dated September 28, 2007. Additionally, as
recently as January of last year, the EPA praised Florida for implementing
“some of the most progressive nutrient management strategies in the
nation.” Florida's plan had a timetable for implementation through 2011.Despite the fact that Florida was working to implement its approved plan
and was seeing successes, the EPA reversed its determinations in 2009 and
informed the state that new federal rules and criteria would be developed
and implemented by the EPA, preempting the approved state plan. The EPA's
announcement was based on its effort to settle a lawsuit pending against
the agency. At the time of its announcement, the EPA said that “making
such a determination could give the EPA a basis to propose a settlement to
the plaintiffs or to request that the court dismiss the case.”According to the state's lawsuit, the EPA has continued to rely on a
methodology that is not scientifically sound and not site specific for
Florida's waters. In April, the EPA's own Science Advisory Board joined
the chorus of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, the Florida
Legislature and others expressing serious concerns that the EPA's methods
for developing nutrient standards are scientifically flawed.Also of significant concern to the state is the cost implication of
implementing the new criteria. Studies produced by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, as well as two independent studies all show that the
impact to Florida's economy will be in the billions. The EPA's anticipated
cost is the outlier, projecting a cost closer to $200 million. Costs for
implementation are likely to be uneven across the state – high in some
places, minimal in others. Unfortunately, the impact on the areas where
the cost will be high is not offset by low costs elsewhere. These costs
will be borne by the local users or in the case of government-owned
utilities by higher tax rates.A copy of the lawsuit, which was filed today in the federal court in
Pensacola, is available online at:
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/CRUE-8BWPPD/$file/epacompliant.pdfContact: Sandi Copes
Phone: 850.245.0150
Sandi.Copes@myfloridalegal.comU.S. EPA’s
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL
of
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
OMB APPROVED
RELEASE 3.2
February 4, 2008EPA's two-year appropriations are:
a.
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) Appropriation
The EPM appropriation account encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, travel, and expenses for all programs of the Agency except Science and Technology (S&T), Hazardous Substance Superfund (HSSF), Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response (OSR), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include setting environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring emissions and ambient conditions and providing technical and legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. In most cases, the states are directly responsible for actual operation of the various environmental programs. In this regard, the Agency’s activities include oversight and assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes. In addition to program costs, this account funds a large portion of the administrative costs associated with the operating programs of the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy oversight, resources management, general office and building services for program operations, and direct implementation of all Agency environmental programs except those previously mentioned for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and all non-research field operations.
b.
Science and Technology (S&T) Appropriation
EPA's Science and Technology (S&T) appropriation account funds the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions leading to improved protection of human health and the environment, and to advance the base of understanding of environmental sciences. Thus, S&T appropriation account funds most EPA research. The Agency's efforts using S&T funds are conducted through extramural contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with universities, industries, other private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, state and local government, and Federal agencies, as well as through intramural work performed at EPA's laboratories and various field stations and field offices.
The S&T Appropriation account funds activities such as developing and improving sampling and analytical methods and instruments for measuring pollutants; determining the effects of pollutants on human health, ecosystems, and the general environment; researching the processes that relate to pollution; evaluating technologies for preventing and controlling pollution; and developing guidelines and research tools to improve risk assessments. The S&T Account also provides operating expenses for most Agency research facilities. This includes categories such as personnel salary & benefits, laboratory supplies and materials, operation and maintenance of lab facilities, equipment, Information Technology (IT) support, human resource development, and printing. Beginning in FY 1996, this account also funds Hazardous Substances research appropriated in the Superfund Account and transferred to the S&T appropriation account. The appropriated Superfund funds are available for obligation for only two (2) years once transferred into the S&T account.
c.
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
This appropriation provides funding for EPA audit and investigative functions and program evaluations to identify and recommend corrective actions of management, program, and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function provides contract audit, performance audit, and financial audit services. Contract audits provide professional judgments, findings, and recommendations to Agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Performance audits review and evaluate all facets of Agency operations. Grant audits focus on the effectiveness of individual projects, reasonableness of costs, and adequacy of management systems. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the OIG program.There are historically two sources of funds for the budget authority in the OIG account: a.) General Revenues, b.) the Superfund Trust Fund. Although the SF appropriation is provided to EPA from the SF Trust Fund as a no-year appropriation, the appropriated Superfund funds are available for obligation for only two (2) years once transferred into the IG account. The Agency’s financial coding structure ensures that both OIG sources of funds are tracked separately to provide proper accounting. Budget authority that is not obligated during the fiscal year is not “drawn down” from the respective funding source.
3. No-Year Appropriations are available for obligation without fiscal year limitation. They remain available until expended, rescinded or otherwise withdrawn. In order for an appropriation to be no-year, it must be expressly stated as such in the appropriating language.
EPA's no-year appropriations are:
a.
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (Superfund)
The Superfund appropriation is provided to carry out the legislative mandates of CERCLA as amended by SARA by addressing the problems of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. The legislation mandates that EPA (1) provide emergency response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean up hazardous waste sites where no financially responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to require responsible private parties to clean up hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the Agency’s Superfund program.
b.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Trust Fund (LUST)
The LUST Appropriation Account is provided to carry out the legislative mandates of SARA by conducting corrective action for releases from leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST Program through state cooperative agreements which enable states to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the environment. The trust fund is also used for enforcement by forcing responsible parties to finance corrective actions and by providing the states with the authority to recover costs from responsible parties for state funds expended for cleanup of abandoned tanks.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the use of funds contained in the LUST Trust Fund for leak detection, prevention, related inspection and enforcement activities. However, Congress must also appropriate funds from the LUST Trust Fund for these purposes for EPA to use LUST appropriations to carry out the Energy Policy Act.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the Agency’s LUST Program.
c. Buildings and Facilities (B&F) Appropriation
Funds are appropriated to EPA’s Buildings and Facilities Account each year to cover the necessary major repairs and improvements to existing installations which house the Agency. This appropriation also covers new construction projects when authorized. Minor repairs and improvements to existing appropriations act.
d.
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
This Appropriation Account, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Act (FWPA) and amended by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. EPA is responsible for directing all cleanup and removal activities posing a threat to public health and the environment; conducting inspections, including inducing responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups; and conducting research and oil cleanup techniques. Funds are provided through the OSLTF established by the OPA and managed by the U.S. Coast Guard.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the Agency’s Oil Spill Program.
e. State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Appropriation
The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation includes three components: (1) Infrastructure Grants including State Revolving Funds (SRF), (2) Categorical STAG Grants, and (3) other specified grant programs (i.e., Alaska Native Villages, Diesel Retrofits, and work along the Mexican Border).
Funding for the SRFs comprise the largest part of the STAG account. These funds are used to capitalize revolving loan funds in each state which provide loans to municipalities for major wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. There are two types of water infrastructure SRFs: Clean Water SRF (CWSRF) and Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF).
The states loan these funds to municipalities for the infrastructure projects, who then pay back their loan by making payments back into the state SRF account. The state can then make more loans (hence the term "revolving") to other municipalities. The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) reauthorized the “construction grants” program through 1990 and provided for its phase-out and replacement with a State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, to be capitalized by grants to the States.]
Categorical State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) provide financial assistance to states and tribes in numerous environmental categories by program. These grants help states and tribes develop the technical, managerial, and enforcement capacity to operate the environmental programs that monitor drinking water systems, implement water quality standards, combat air pollution, promote the use of safer pesticides, manage hazardous waste, and assure compliance with Federal environmental laws. In addition, Categorical STAG funds are available in specified amounts appropriated for certain grant programs identified in the statute.
The Omnibus Rescissions and Appropriations Act (ORAA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) provided EPA permanent authority within the STAG account to award Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs). PPGs permit states and tribes to combine STAG "categorical grants” (i.e. air, water) into one or more grants, to be used for addressing the unique priorities of each state or tribe. PPGs were created to reduce the burden on and increase the flexibility for state and tribal governments that need to manage and implement their environmental protection programs, and at the same time produce the results-oriented performance necessary to address the most pressing concerns and achieve a clean environment.CHAPTER 2:
ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES OR FUNDS CONTROL
There are a number management and staff levels involved with funds control at EPA (for an illustration showing the relationships of these, see Exhibit 2520-2-1). The positions associated with funds control within EPA range from National Program Managers (NPMs) to funding document originators. This section will briefly describe the roles and responsibilities of each of these key players regarding funds control and focus mostly on the Funds Control Officers (FCOs).
All levels of responsibility for funds control should ensure that no expenditures be authorize or created as an obligation under any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available [31 U.S.C 1341(a)]. All personnel responsible for administrative control of funds should familiarize themselves with the following legal requirements found in:
a. Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341(a);
b. OMB Circular A-11, Part 4; and
c. EPA’s Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds Manual (RMDS 2520).
I.
PARTICIPANTS:
A. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS (AAs),
NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGERS (NPMs), and
RESPONSIBLE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OFFICERS (RPIOs)
The Administrator and the twelve (12) Assistant Administrators (AAs) in headquarters are National Program Managers (NPMs) who control resources. These thirteen (13) NPMs, who are normally political officials, formulate budgets for EPA’s national programs and offices including the regional program components. NPMs responsibilities include planning, formulating, and justifying budgets for national EPA programs, making adjustments to national program budgets (e.g., headquarters/regional splits) as needed, and preparing program operating guidance. For example, the AA for the Office of Water has national budget responsibilities for the entire EPA Water Program.
The Responsible Planning and Implementation Officers (RPIOs) are the 24 EPA senior managers responsible for planning and implementing operating plans, using and accounting for resources, and reviewing programs. This consist of 24 individuals who are the Administrator, the (12) headquarters Assistant Administrators, including the Inspector General, and the ten (10) Regional Administrators. Each RPIO has program operations to administer and a budget to execute.
In terms of properly utilizing funds for the purpose for which they were appropriated, the RPIOs, their Allowance Holders (AHs), and FCOs bear sole responsibility. No other Agency organizations are fully aware of the obligating activities and the decisions behind them that transpire on a day-to-day basis. , The RPIOs are presumed to be the most knowledgeable EPA entity regarding what is permissible in the authorizing statutes for their programs. Additionally, the RPIOs are active participants during the process of budget formulation, the OMB submission, the Congressional Justification, and all subsequent stages of the legislative history behind the appropriations act. They receive copies of the House, Senate, & Conference Committee Appropriation Reports and are kept informed of what is in the Public Law for their programs. The OGC is available to assist them in any interpretation of ambiguous language. The actions taken by the RPIOs’ in executing their portion of the budget is subject to audit and review by the OIG, GAO, Congressional Committees, Agency management, etc. RPIOs are held accountable responsibility for the utilization of their funds.B. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS (RAs)
Each Regional Administrator (RA) is both a Responsible Planning and Implementation Officer (RPIO) and an Allowance Holder (AH). RAs are not NPMs since they have a primary responsibility for regional, not national, administration and budget execution for all programs in the states and territories within their region. RAs coordinate on budget formulation and execution with NPMs and present regional budget planning concerns through the Lead Region process.
Lead Regions are designated for each major program (Water, Air, etc.) and they are responsible for representing the designated program with the appropriate NPM in developing priorities, budgets, and work year estimates for the regional program components. Lead Regions are rotated every two years and are also responsible for working with their respective NPM to identify and synthesize the issues of all ten (10) regions into a "regional view" that can be effectively factored into Agency decision-making. The list of Lead Regional Coordinators can be found at http://www.epa.gov/regional/leadregionprocess.htm. NPMs are responsible for soliciting and using this contribution from their Lead Region on major decisions.
As RPIOs, Regional Administrators are responsible for overseeing the execution of their allowances and for the review of budget reprogrammings before they are sent to the Office of Budget (OB). In carrying out his or her responsibilities, a RA typically depends heavily upon their Assistant Regional Administrator (ARA) and an individual in the ARA's office who serves essentially as a Budget Officer. In many Regions, this individual is the Regional Comptroller.
C. SENIOR RESOURCE OFFICIALS (SROs)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS (DAAs)/
ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS (ARAs)
The SROs are Senior Executive Service (SES) managers who are designated by and report to the Administrator, the 10 RAs, the GC, the Inspector General, and nine AAs. Additionally, one SES manager is designated by the Deputy Administrator for the Office of the Administrator (OA). The CFO approves all SRO designations upon initial designation, and annually thereafter. In line with the CFO Act (CFOA) of 1990, SROs must have the knowledge, skills and abilities in resource management necessary for the position.
SROs are typically Deputy Assistant Administrators (DAA) and Assistant Regional Administrators (ARAs). The SRO is accountable for the Headquarters Office's or Region's, effective resource management, including acquisition, assistance, budget, financial management and management integrity.
SRO accountability, like the accountability of other EPA managers and officials, cannot be delegated, even if SRO functions are delegated. When SROs are temporarily absent, the individual acting for the SRO must be appraised of SRO responsibilities. In cases where a resource requirement may involve more than one program or Regional Office, the SROs of all affected offices share responsibility. While the SROs are accountable for resource management in their respective Headquarters Offices or Regions, the CFO has overall responsibility for these resources. Specifically, the SROs:
1. advise the CFO on fiscal resource management issues, including acquisition, assistance, budget, financial management and management integrity. Extramural resources within this scope include contracts, simplified acquisitions, grants, loans, and cooperative and interagency agreements;
2. oversee, assess and advocate accountable fiscal resource management;3. ensure compliance with fiscal resource management laws and regulations while furthering program mission;
4. ensure appropriate and effective systems, procedures, management controls, communication and outreach are in place for accountable fiscal resource management;
5. ensure appropriate and effective planning, assessment, monitoring and control for accountable fiscal resource management;
6. ensure that assistance and acquisition mechanisms are used for work appropriate to their purposes;
7. review and approve the following extramural management actions and funding requests. SRO concurrence is required for all:
a. requests for contract advisory and assistance services;
b. procurement requests (PRs) not including requests for incremental funding over $1 million and;
c. agreements for Federal funding assistance when total project costs are expected to be $5 million or more for continuing program grants and over $1 million for project grants.
8. ensure -- by working through established organizational structure -- that program or Regional resource managers [e.g., Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs), project officers (POs), work assignment managers (WAMs), delivery order project officers (DOPOs); grants management officers; funds control and financial management officers; and their supervisors:
a. are working within their workload limitations;
b. have Agency-required training and experience, and receive appropriate program or office-specific training that is available; and,
c. have appropriate resource management responsibilities in their position descriptions and performance standards.
9. manage and certify completion of the Annual Review of Unliquidated Obligations for current and prior year travel and simplified acquisitions, as described in Chapter 3, Part IV.A.
D. SENIOR BUDGET OFFICERS (SBOs)
In Headquarters, Senior Budget Officers (SBOs) greatly assist the NPMs and SROs in carrying out the responsibilities listed previously and serve as the primary liaison between the Office of Budget (OB) and the Allowance Holders (AHs). The SBO:
1. has the lead role for managing the budget formulation process on behalf of their HQ NPM;
2. usually has the lead role in coordinating the budget execution activities for their HQ RPIO;
3. reviews, approves, processes or forwards budget reprogrammings and coordinates with the Office of Budget (OB) as needed;4. reviews each Allowance Holder (AH) Operating Plan (Op Plan) and spending utilization to ensure that funds controls and program goals are being met; and,
5. manages the review of Headquarters current year unliquidated obligations to determine their validity and viability, as required by the CFO.
E. REGIONAL COMPTROLLERS
The Regional Comptroller serves as the Region’s manager on all matters related to budget and finance responsibilities and functions. This position is the primary point of contact for the OCFO (Office of Budget Office, Office of Financial Management, and Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability) and National Program Managers on regional budget and financial matters. This position is also analogous to the Senior Budget Officer, however, on the Regional level yet works with the Senior Budget Officer when addressing national environmental program issues.
The Regional Comptroller is responsible for:
1. coordinating budget formulation and execution processes and decisions on resources (dollars and FTEs) at the Regional level;
2. managing the execution of the budget at the Regional level following Agency fund control policies, guidelines, and procedures;
3. oversees utilization of Regional resources and prepares reprogramming requests as necessary;
4. ensuring resources are utilized according to government-wide and Agency budget and financial policies and procedures;
5. accounting and reporting on resource utilization according to Agency and government-wide financial accounting standards and policies;
6. manages Regional data systems to account for resources and coordinates with centralized Financial Servicing Offices (FSOs) on payments of payroll, contracts, grants, assistance agreements, and Superfund activities. Works with Headquarters Office of Financial Management (OFM) on IFMS financial policy and accounting issues.
7. maintains close working relationship with Regional Grants Management Offices to facilitate proper and timely award of Agency grants;
8. manages the review of unliquidated obligations with all Regional offices to facilitate timely expenditures of Regional resources.
9. serves as the Regional point of contact for budget and financial investigations audits on the use of Regional resources.
F. REGIONAL BUDGET OFFICERS
The Regional Budget Officer (RBO) serves as the Region's point of contact on all matters dealing with budget formulation, operating plan development, and budget execution. In both areas, the RBO must communicate with HQ NPMs and OB on all budget matters, especially with regard to furnishing information and advice on Regional programs and objectives.4. Special Accounts / Cashouts - This is funding that EPA receives from APotentially Responsible Parties@ through agreements or legal settlements in the Superfund program. The funding is intended to pay for future work at specific sites and EPA is authorized to A retain and use@ these funds by section 122(b)(3) of CERCLA. It should be noted that funds collected in these accounts that are used for performing reimbursable work count against the Agency’s FTE/work-year ceilings.
5. Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) - This is authority for Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) income and royalty payments from licensing agreements with private firms which will pay royalties to the Federal Government for an exclusive license to use Federally-developed technology. FTTA CRADA funds are held in trust for the co-operators and may be used solely for specified purposes. CRADA funds are subject to recertification and the same internal controls as appropriated funds.
FTTA royalty funds lapse at the end of the fiscal year following the one during which they were received.
6. Advance State Match/State Cost Share - This is the percentage of site response costs matched by the individual states either after-the-fact, or under rare circumstances, in advance in the Superfund program.
7. Reimbursable Workyears (FTEs) - Additional workyears to undertake the terms of an agreement can only be provided by OMB and FTEs should not be written into any agreement during budget execution. In the past, in the rare instances where OMB has agreed that reimbursable FTEs were appropriate and justifiable, the FTE were granted during the budget planning cycles (either the OMB submission or the Operating Plan development stage).
8. FIFRA IPAs - Intergovernmental Personnel Act employees under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972.
9. Recycling Fees - Collections from the Agency's recycling program.
Not all instances for which EPA uses the reimbursable allowance mechanism are situations of actual reimbursement. Many are up-front collections (such as fee programs, intergovernmental agreements, and cash outs) where the agency has statutory authority to retain and use funds, and it is the best mechanism for OMB to provide the obligational authority to the Agency. In all cases, however, where other organizations are providing funding, there is a net zero impact (the result is neither an increase nor decrease) upon EPA's Enacted Appropriations following disbursement and/or reimbursement. Also, the reimbursable apportionment authority is not a budgetary resource until an agreement is entered into (if an IAG) or funds are received (If a collection) and the apportionment authority is thereby funded.Reimbursable authority must be obtained from the Office of Budget (OB) in the form of a reimbursable Advice of Allowance prior to commitment or obligation of any of the resources described above. However, before authority can be issued, the OB must have received documentation that an IAG has been executed or that funds have been collected by the Agency. For example, an EPA office that has entered into an IAG cannot act upon the agreement until they have forwarded an official executed copy to the OB and receiveda reimbursable allowance to commit and obligate against. Reimbursable Advices of Allowance are issued through the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and are reflected in the Operating Plan as reimbursable appropriations.
Those appropriation accounts for which EPA receives Reimbursable Authority from OMB are: EPM, S&T, LUST, Superfund, OIG, and Oil Spills. Since reimbursable agreements may involve any of the budget object classes, authority will be issued in the appropriation for which the object class and/or work being performed is appropriate. Because there is a net zero impact upon EPA's enacted appropriations, ceilings and floors, if any, do not apply except in the case of Reimbursable work years (FTE).
Reimbursable work years (FTE) which accrue as a result of charging PC&B against a reimbursable agreement are subject to an RPIO's own direct FTE ceiling. In other words, an RPIO cannot exceed its work year ceiling (direct plus reimbursable FTE).
Not all unfunded Agency reimbursable authority and not all unobligated reimbursable allowances expire at year-end. If the reimbursing Agency's funding has not expired at year end, RPIOs can request a reimbursable allowance in the new fiscal year to cover any unobligated portion of their agreement(s).
For more on reimbursable interagency agreements and the reimbursable process, see Chapter 4 of RMDS 2550C entitled: Interagency Agreements.III.
COMMITTING AND OBLIGATING APPROPRIATED FUNDS
A Funds Control Officer's signature on a document signifies that the document has been personally reviewed for accuracy, that all accounting data is accurate and complete, that the transaction has been accepted in IFMS, and that the funds are available as to purpose, time, and amount. There may be rare exceptions when a transaction may not accepted into IFMS. These rare exceptions happen before IFMS is opened at the beginning of a fiscal year.
It is the FCO’s responsibility to ensure that all of these actions have taken place before forwarding the document to other Agency officials. These officials will be relying on the FCOs signature to indicate that the funds will not be altered, revised, or withdrawn prior to obligation without advance notice, or until the recipient of the document is notified in writing.
This section will cover the essential items on funding documents that an FCO should review, and common funding problems an FCO may encounter after committing the funds and how those problems are resolved. Since an FCO’s realm of responsibility may vary between depending on whether they are located in HQ or the Regions, not all of these functions may actually be performed by the FCO. However, in either location, the FCO is directly responsible for, or subject to, coordinating with other personnel on the following activities.
A. REVIEWING AND APPROVING FUNDING DOCUMENTS
A lack of attention to detail in properly reviewing a funding document could result in a violation of the Anti- Deficiency Act. Therefore, the FCO should ensure that the following information is correctly cited on the document before committing the funds in IFMS:
1. Correct Appropriation: Chapter 1 Part III describes the different appropriations used by the Agency and their purpose. The FCO must ensure that the funds cited are being used for the appropriate purpose. The FCO may also need to apply the "Pick and Stick” rule to determine whether or not the document is funding something from one appropriation that traditionally may have been funded from a different appropriation. This rule was covered in Chapter 1 (Part II, A 1).
2. Correct Account Number: See Chapter 3, Part I for description of the 6-Field IFMS Account Code and how to enter this information.
3. Correct Object Class Code: See Chapter 3, Part I for description. FCOs must ensure that the document cites the correct sub-object class code in terms of properly categorizing the item, coinciding with the appropriation cited and properly identifying the item as being administrative or programmatic in nature. For further information, FCOs should review RMDS 2590 which contains a description of all of the Agency's sub-object class codes.
4. Correct SFO Code: Chapter 2, Part II describes the roles and responsibilities of an SFO. The SFO closes out commitments and enters obligations into IFMS. Thus, all funding documents must cite the proper SFO code in order to reach their proper destination and be processed. The correct SFO code is based upon the FCO's geographic location and/or on the type of funding document being processed. See Exhibit 2520-2-3 for the correct SFO code to use for each type of funding document.
5. Accurate Mathematics: FCOs must ensure that, when more than one quantity of an item is being procured, the total cost of the purchase is correct. Thus, the estimated unit price multiplied by the quantity must equal the total price/cost shown on the document.
If the funding document is citing more than one appropriation and one of them is a Trust Fund appropriation, the FCO must make sure that the Trust Fund layoff percentages used in calculating the costs against each appropriation are correct, and that the document cites the appropriate corresponding accounting information. For more information on the concept of Trust Fund Layoffs, see Chapter 4(G).
6. Correct Signatures: FCOs must ensure that the document has all the proper signatures (Initiator and/or Approving Official). Actions sometimes require different levels of approval, such as international travel which requires higher level approvals than domestic travel. Based on the amount of an item being procured, Bankcard purchases might need a Contracting Officer‘s (who has a warrant) signature. FCOs should be familiar with all persons authorized to sign for their organization. By checking for signatures, the FCO is assured that the document has been reviewed by the appropriate individuals. (If multiple organizations are involved, all appropriate FCOs are responsible.) Also, OAM requires that some types of procurement have signatures from individuals outside of the FCO's office. For example, for the purchase of any Information Technology (IT) equipment, the funding document must have the SIRMO's (Senior Information Resource Management Official) signature. For the procurement of furniture or renting of conference space, the document must have a signature from the Facilities Management & Services Division (FMSD).
7. Proper Funding Vehicle: Most commonly used funding documents at EPA are fairly self-explanatory (i.e. Travel Authorization and Travel Voucher for travel related expenses). However, there are some instances where the FCO needs to apply policy guidance. Although the document may originate with the Contracting Officer Representative (COR), the FCO must also know when it is appropriate to use a contract but not a grant or cooperative agreement. The Federal Grant & Cooperative Agreement Act (FGCAA), 31 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq., provides that grant and cooperative agreements must be awarded when the principal purpose is to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by statute, rather than to acquire services or products which directly benefit the government. In interpreting the FGCAA, EPA Order 5700.1, states:
If an office or laboratory's principal purpose, in undertaking a project, is to obtain a product or service for the direct benefit or use of the Agency, or any part of the Federal government including the legislative and judicial branches, a contract, rather than a grant (assistance agreement), must be used.
There is one exception. It is when services -- for the direct benefit or use of the Agency -- are related to the Senior Environmental Employee (SEE) Program, which is authorized by the Environmental Programs Assistance Act. In this case it is more appropriate for this program that was established by Congressional legislation and is awarded through SEE grants.
B. RECORDING COMMITMENTS
Once the document has been properly reviewed, and all financial data is correct, the funds are ready to be committed. Committing funds reserves a specified amount for a specific purpose. Commitments help managers to estimate how much individual spending actions will cost and to predict overall expenditures based on actions that are not yet obligations. Since large procurements often take months to award, it is essential that FCOs ensure that committed funds remain available throughout the entire procurement
process.
1. Funds Availability Check
The first thing an FCO must do after reviewing the document is a funds availability check. A document cannot be committed if sufficient funds are not available. If allowances have been established at the RC level, the two key tables to observe in IFMS are the SASP and SAIN Tables. For those Allowance Holders whose funds are not distributed to a lower level, funds availability can be confirmed in the ALLT or ALST Tables. If funds are available, then the document can be committed. However, if there are insufficient funds, the commitment may not be processed and it may be necessary to submit a reprogramming request. Although IFMS will not lock out such a spending action unless the AH total is insufficient at the appropriation level, spending another RC's resources within the same Allowance violates Agency policy. If the Operating Plan has not been established at the RC level, an office must have alternate procedures in place to determine RC balances. See Section II of this chapter for more information on reprogrammings. The FCO initiates the reprogramming request based on their own organizational level. For example, an FCO at the RC level would contact the AH. An FCO at the AH level would contact the SBO. Remember, the type of reprogramming required (RR or RP) will determine the level of approvals needed. If there are insufficient funds and a reprogramming cannot be accomplished, then the spending action cannot be undertaken.
2.
Entering Documents into IFMS and Travel Manager
If funds are available, the FCO enters the funding document into IFMS as a Requisition (RQ) or into Travel Manager as a Travel Order (TO). While the RQ is entered as a commitment, TOs are entered as an obligation. The FCO (or IFMS) will assign the document a Document Control Number (DCN). The DCN is
then written on the funding document. A DCN should never be written on a funding document without having been entered into IFMS first. The number on the document and in IFMS must match. Putting the "next in line DCN" on a document without actually committing the funds into IFMS is poor fiscal management. It is essential that data on funding documents be accurate, legible and consistent with what is entered into IFMS. If any changes are made to the funding document after it has been sent forward, the FCO must immediately notify the obligating official of the changes.
It is critical that the FCO maintain organized and accurate records of all the funding documents processed throughout the fiscal year. According to EPA's Record Management Manual, all funding documents and records related to IFMS should be held for up to 3 years after they are filed and final payment has been made, then retired to the Federal Records Center. After the document has been entered into IFMS and the funds are committed, the FCO may choose to transmit the document or return it to the originator for transmittal to the obligating official, according to local office procedures.
Obligating officials are EPA employees who have been delegated authority to legally obligate the government to pay for goods and services. Obligating officials, including Contracting and Grants Officers, know how to process an obligation, and what constitutes evidence of the obligation. Obligating officials forward a copy of the obligating documents to the SFO to officially record the obligation of funds in IFMS. Obligating officials will also forward copies of the obligating document to the originator and/or to the FCO. The copies may be marked "Receiving Report" and "Originator". If the originator is someone other than the FCO, internal procedures should be established to ensure that the originator forwards a copy to the FCO. This is especially true with Training Requests, which are obligated as Purchase Orders on the same form and usually returned to the trainee for submission to the vendor. It is important that the FCO maintain a copy of all obligating documents in their files to facilitate any reconciliation that may be necessary.
3.
Unfunded Procurement Requests (PRs) for Planning Purposes
Many Federal Agencies use Planning Purpose PRs (PPPRs) in their procurement process. Traditionally, these types of PRs are non-funded actions that are used in initiating procurement efforts that will take a long time to award, as well as for procurement actions that must begin on, or soon after, the start of the next fiscal year (i.e., contracts for service-related contracts that an Agency uses every fiscal year).
Currently, in OAM, the Procurement Initiation Notice (PIN) has replaced the planning PR (PPPR) for new procurements using other than simplified acquisition procedures. Exercising options, renewing leases, maintenance agreements and other requirements submitted subject to the availability of funds are initiated by the Project Officer (PO) using a PPPR. In order to start the procurement process in a timely manner, a PPPR is necessary to help the procurement office determine how much money the Agency needs for a given good or service, and using that estimate as a base during the negotiating process with a contractor. Once a contract is negotiated in terms of cost, a Contracting Officer (CO) will then request a revised PR (from those offices that submitted PPPRs) that reflects the negotiated amount prior to obligating the contract.
When planning PRs are done for a service that will be required in a new fiscal year, federal procurement regulations require that the PR contain the following statement: "This PR is for planning purposes only, does not constitute a contract or a commitment to a contract, does not constitute a contract or a commitment to a contract, and is subject to the availability of funds at the time of award." This statement is placed on PRs to ensure compliance with the Antideficiency Act (no funds may be obligated on any government contract in advance of an appropriation) and the bona fide needs rule (an appropriation may only be obligated to meet a legitimate need that exists during the period of availability). See Chapter 1 for further information.
A good example of when the Agency uses planning PRs is with maintenance contracts. Maintenance is a service that is continually required every fiscal year. To negotiate a price with a contractor for maintenance, the Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) first determines how many program offices within the Agency will need the service. OAM will send out an annual call letter (during the summer months) requesting that those offices needing maintenance service send them a planning PR containing a cost estimate (based on previous years) for how much the office expects to pay for their maintenance costs. These planning PRs are then used by OAM as a base when negotiating with a contractor for the actual cost of the contract.
Offices that fail to provide a planning PR (or a revised PR after the contract costs have been negotiated) to OAM for a service or good, and then actually receive a service or good from a contractor may create an unauthorized procurement. See Section I for more on unauthorized procurements.
For more information on Planning PRs, see section 7.3.5.1, paragraphs C and E of the Contracts Management Manual at:
http://epawww.epa.gov/oamintra/policy/cmm.pdfAIG Role Still Haunts James Cole's Chances to be Deputy Attorney General
by Beatrice Edwards on December 07, 2010 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )
As the 111th Congress draws to a close, the heat is on to confirm James Cole as Deputy Attorney General. Despite the last-minute push, Cole still has serious problems that haunt and disqualify him from taking a senior position at the Justice Department.
From 2005 through December 2009, James Cole served as an independent monitor in the Compliance Office of the American International Group (AIG), placed there by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as part of a deal that allowed AIG to escape prosecution for fraud.
While Americans and their elected representatives are notorious for their short attention spans, it's worth remembering, in this case, that AIG was the corporation that nearly drove the US economy off a cliff in September 2008. AIG's Financial Products Division (AIG-FP), based in London, wrote credit default swaps involving staggering amounts of money that had to be covered with a US government bailout in the range of $180 billion.
The AIG rescue, courtesy of US taxpayers, was the single largest bailout of any corporation that went belly up in the Great Recession. In the aftermath, Congressional investigators found that Cole had specifically exempted AIG-FP from his oversight. When Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked him for a written explanation of the lapse, Cole replied that AIG-FP was doing too many of these deals for him to monitor (Question h, p. 5). He allowed the division to design its own risk analysis model to assess the viability of the swaps AIG-FP itself was writing. He left it at that.
Nor was Cole forthcoming in answering Grassley about what he had done at AIG. As we reported at the time:Cole's entire response set to Grassley's questions about his role at AIG before, during and after the financial collapse that nearly took out the international economic system is reminiscent of NPR's “Not My Job” segment (also known as “Someone Else's Problem”) .
As markets around the world still struggle to recover, and the cold light of day hits the epidemic of financial crime still eating away at economic stability , the US Justice Department needs a new Deputy Attorney General who is more responsible than James Cole.
Beatrice Edwards is International Reform Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.
NASA is responsible for the environmental cleanup of the federal real property at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. The NASA-held (federal) portion of the site has been used historically for the research, development and testing of rocket engines associated with the Apollo and Space Shuttle Programs. Under NASA's AOC, the agency will work with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to determine the chemical background for each potential chemical constituent, based on its on-going chemical background study. The agency also will work with DTSC to determine the nature and extent of any remaining chemical contamination based on the previously submitted chemical sampling results, and any DTSC-determined necessary additional sampling.
Originally developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research, the 2,850-acre SSFL, located in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley, is owned primarily by the Boeing Company, with small portions administered by NASA. The former Atomic Energy Commission conducted nuclear research on nuclear-powered space vehicles and sodium coolant mediums at 10 small reactors at the Energy Technology Engineering Center -- 90 acres within SSFL Area IV -- from the 1950s until 1988.
Several EPA documents are available that can provide more
information on the RFA/SBREFA, the Agency’s small entity
compliance assistance efforts and the elements of a regulatory
flexibility analysis. These documents and further assistance with any
RFA/SBREFA questions are available from the SBAC, SBAC Staff,
or from the RFA/SBREFA website, listed below.
Small Business Advocacy Chair
Alexander Cristofaro
Small Business Advocacy Chair Staff
Lanelle Wiggins, Team Leader
(202) 566-2372; wiggins.lanelle@epa.gov
Lakeshia Walker
(202) 564-6571; walker.lakeshia@epa.gov
Caryn Muellerleile
(202) 564-2855; muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov
Nathaniel Jutras
(202) 564-0301; jutras.nathaniel@epa.gov
RFA/SBREFA Website
www.epa.gov/sbrefaRegulatory Flexibility Act / Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA)
What is a "Small Business"?
The RFA/SBREFA references the definition of "small business" found in the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act further authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define "small business" by regulation.
What is a "Small Government"?
The RFA/SBREFA defines "small governmental jurisdiction" as the government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000.
What is a "Small Organization"?
The RFA/SBREFA defines "small organization" as any "not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."
ParticipateEPA is developing a regulation that would require financial responsibility for clean-up of contaminated sites within the hard rock mining industry. Find out if you are eligible to nominate yourself to serve as a Small Entity Representative (SER) for an upcoming panel to explore potential small business impacts.
Who Are We
- Organization
- SBREFA Staff & Contact Information
- You are here: EPA Home
- RFA / SBREFA
- Who Are We
Who Are They
EPA Small Business Advocacy Chair (SBAC)
Alexander Cristofaro, SBAC
Office of Policy
The position of the Small Business Advocacy Chair (SBAC) was created by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The SBAC is responsible for guidance and oversight of the Agency's implementation of the RFA as amended by SBREFA and serves as the permanent chair of all Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panels. The SBAC is responsible for all aspects of the SBAR Panel process. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator designated Alexander Cristofaro to fulfill the Agency's responsibilities in this regard.
SBAC Staff
Name Phone Email
Lanelle Wiggins (202) 566-2372 wiggins.lanelle@epa.gov Nathaniel Jutras (202) 564-0301 jutras.nathaniel@epa.gov Caryn Muellerleile (202) 564-2855 muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov
Lucinda Power (202) 566-0356 power.lucinda@epa.gov The SBAC staff provides guidance, training, recordkeeping, reporting and general support in EPA's implementation of the RFA/SBREFA. They provide coordination and support for the SBAR Panel process to make each SBAR Panel as efficient and productive as possible. They also advise EPA's program offices on how the RFA/SBREFA Panel process can fit into their rulemaking schedule, how to involve SBA and OMB in the process, and the implications of the results of their screening analysis, among other things.
EPA's SBREFA Web site is managed by the Office of Policy (OP)
Office of Regulatory Policy and Management | Office of Policy | RFA/SBREFA Home
- You are here: EPA Home
- RFA / SBREFA
- Statute
RFA/SBREFA Statute
Regulatory Flexibility Act
as amended by
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness ActThe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq , was signed into law on September 19, 1980. The RFA imposes both analytical and procedural requirements on EPA and on other federal agencies. The analytical requirements call for EPA to carefully consider the economic impacts rules will have on small entities. The procedural requirements are intended to ensure that small entities have a voice when EPA makes policy determinations in shaping its rules.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), Pub Law No. 104-121, was signed into law on March 29, 1996. SBREFA enacted a variety of provisions, including several amendments to the RFA. In short, SBREFA amended the RFA to require EPA to convene a small business advocacy review panel prior to proposing any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It also added a provision that allows small entities adversely affected by a final rule to challenge the agency's compliance with the RFA's requirements in court.
For the purposes of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process, small entity includes small businesses, small governments and small organizations. The term "small business" is defined by law in the Small Business Act and the term "small government and small organization" are defined by law in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
- Individual sections of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act are available on the U.S. Government Printing Office (specifically, under Title 5, Part 1, Chapter 6).
- Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II of Public Law 104-121; Page 11) (PDF format 100KB)
- Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(PDF format 29KB)
Small Entity Definitions: Small Business
Small Government
Small Organization
Office of Whistleblower Protection Program – Federal Statutes
Holy war looming over Iron Mountain?
“EPA messed up my business.”
- Ted Arman
EPA Really Cares About Stormwater Enforcement
Posted on December 3, 2010 by Seth JaffeWhen EPA creates a web page solely addressing one stormwater settlement , you can safely assume that EPA thinks it is important and is trying to send a message. Thus, EPA's announcement earlier this week of a settlement with Beazer Homes to resolve allegations that Beazer Homes violated federal stormwater requirements at construction sites in 21 – count ‘em, 21 – states should make everyone in the construction industry sit up and take notice.
The settlement requires Beazer Homes to pay a penalty of $925,000 (mostly to EPA, but some to each of the states). EPA estimated a price tag for the injunctive relief of almost $9,487,384. Basically, the consent decree simply requires Beazer Homes to comply with stormwater regulations, but EPA has imposed certain management requirements on Beazer Homes to ensure that compliance really will happen. Beazer Homes must develop an overall stormwater compliance program, designate a nationwide stormwater compliance manager, and also identify division-level compliance managers who must inspect every construction site within their jurisdiction at least quarterly to ensure that individual sites are in compliance.
Stormwater is clearly one of EPA's top priorities. The press release for the Beazer Homes settlement states so explicitly:
Keeping contaminated stormwater out of America's waters is one of EPA's national enforcement initiatives.
As concerns about nutrients increase, and EPA faces pressure from citizen groups regarding TMDLs for nutrients, we should only expect more such announcements. An ounce of prevention might be worth $9,487,384 of cure (not including a penalty).
FOUNTAINHEAD
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE PLAN TO VAPORIZE ACID MINE DRAINAGE
[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 73700-73708] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de07-31] [[Page 73700]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 302 and 355 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469; FRL-8511-4] RIN 2050-AG37 CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking provides notice of, and requests comments, including any relevant data, on a proposed administrative reporting exemption from particular notification requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Specifically, the proposed administrative reporting exemption applies to releases of hazardous substances to the air where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste at farms. Nothing in this proposed rule, however, would change the notification requirements if hazardous substances are released to the air from any other source other than animal waste at farms (i.e., ammonia tanks), as well as releases of any hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental media, (i.e., soil, ground water, surface water) when the release of those hazardous substances is at or above its reportable quantity per 24 hours. This administrative reporting exemption is protective of human health and the environment and consistent with the Agency's goal to reduce reporting burden where there would likely be no Federal, state or local emergency response to such release reports. Eliminating such reporting will allow emergency response officials to better focus on releases where the Agency is more likely to take a response action. Finally, in proposing this administrative reporting exemption from the notification requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, section 103(a) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, section 304, EPA is not proposing to limit any of its authorities under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act in this rulemaking. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2007-0469, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov . Fax: (202) 566-9744. Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: [2822T], 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand Delivery: EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND- 2007-0469. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e- mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn M. Beasley, Regulation and Policy Development Division, Office of Emergency Management (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1965; fax number: (202) 564-2625; e-mail address: Beasley.lynn@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA? C. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking? D. Which Hazardous Substances Are We Proposing to Exempt From the Notification Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA? II. Background III. Summary of This Action A. What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule? B. Proposed Definitions C. What Is Not Included Within the Scope of This Proposed Rule? D. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Administrative Reporting Exemption? E. What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative Reporting Exemption? IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) [[Page 73701]] F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA'') J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Type of entity Examples of affected entities ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Industry................................. NAICS Code 111--Crop Production. NAICS Code 112--Animal Production. State and/or Local Governments........... State Emergency Response Commissions, and Local Emergency Planning Committees. Federal Government....................... National Response Center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the criteria in section III.A of this proposed rule and the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 302.6 and 355.40 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? In an effort to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) more efficiently, EPA is proposing to establish an administrative reporting exemption from the notification requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA for releases of hazardous substances, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, to the air where the source of the release is animal waste at farms. The Agency believes that a federal response to such notifications is impractical and unlikely. In addition, nothing in this proposal would limit EPA's authority to take action under its various authorities under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any of provisions of CERCLA or EPCRA (other than ECPCRA section 304) through this rulemaking. Therefore, when submitting comments, remember to: Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking? Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, gives the Federal government broad authority to respond to releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances from vessels and facilities. The term ``hazardous substance'' is defined in section 101(14) of CERCLA primarily by reference to other Federal environmental statutes. Section 102 of CERCLA gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to designate additional hazardous substances. Currently there are approximately 760 CERCLA hazardous substances, exclusive of Radionuclides, F-, K-, and Unlisted Characteristic Hazardous Wastes. CERCLA Section 103(a) calls for immediate notification to the National Response Center (NRC) when the person in charge of a facility has knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance equal to or greater than the reportable quantity (RQ) established by EPA for that substance. In addition to the notification requirements established pursuant to CERCLA section 103, section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., requires the owner or operator of certain facilities to immediately report to State and local authorities releases of CERCLA hazardous substances or any extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) if they exceed their RQ (see 40 CFR 355.40). This proposed rule only applies to CERCLA section 103 notification requirements, including the provisions that allow for continuous release reporting found in paragraph (f)(2) of CERCLA section 103, and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements. The Agency has previously granted such administrative reporting exemptions (AREs) where the Agency has determined that a federal response to such a release is impracticable or unlikely. For example, on March 19, 1998, the Agency issued a final rule (see 63 FR 13459) that granted exemptions for releases of naturally occurring radionuclides. The rule entitled, Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Releases (``Radionuclide ARE''), granted exemptions for releases of hazardous substances that pose little or no risk or to which a Federal response is infeasible or inappropriate (see 63 FR 13461). The Agency relies on CERCLA sections 102(a), 103, and 115 (the general rulemaking authority under CERCLA) as authority to issue regulations governing section 103 notification requirements. The Agency relies on EPCRA section 304 as authority to issue regulations governing EPCRA section 304 notification requirements, and EPCRA section 328 for general rulemaking authority. D. Which Hazardous Substances Are We Proposing to Exempt From the Notification Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA? EPA proposes to exempt certain releases of hazardous substances to the air from the notification requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA, as implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 40 CFR 355.40, respectively. Specifically, we are proposing to exempt those hazardous substance releases which are emitted to the air (typically during digestion, break-down or decomposition) from animal waste at farms. Although ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are the most recognized hazardous substances that are emitted from animal waste, there may also be some amounts of additional hazardous substances released. Ammonia is a by-product of the break-down of urea and proteins that are [[Page 73702]] contained in animal waste. Hydrogen sulfide is another by-product of the break-down of animal waste. These hazardous substances can be emitted when animal waste is contained in a lagoon or stored in under- floor manure pits in some animal housing, manure stockpiles, or in the open where animals congregate. Open air or dry manure stockpiles are not generally associated with significant hydrogen sulfide emissions. Additional hazardous substances may be emitted to the air from animal waste.\1\ These hazardous substances would typically be subject to the notification requirements of CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 once their RQ is met or exceeded. However, this proposed rule will extend the administrative reporting exemption to all hazardous substances emitted to the air from animal waste at farms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2003), p. 54. Additional hazardous substances may include nitrous oxide (NO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The major constituents of VOC emissions could include organic sulfides, disulfides, C 4 to C 7 aldehydes, trimethylamines, C 4 amines, quinoline (RQ = 5000 pounds), dimethylpyrazine, and C 3 to C 6 organic acids, along with lesser amounts of aromatic compounds and C 4 to C 7 alcohols, ketones, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Background Under CERCLA section 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel or facility from which a CERCLA hazardous substance has been released into the environment in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ must immediately notify the NRC of the release. A release is reportable if an RQ or more is released into the environment within a 24-hour period (see 40 CFR 302.6). This reporting requirement serves as a trigger for informing the Federal government of a release so that Federal personnel can evaluate the need for a response in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and undertake any necessary response action in a timely fashion. The NRC is located at the United States Coast Guard (USCG) headquarters and is the national communications center for the receipt of all pollution incidents reporting. The NRC is continuously manned for processing activities related to receipt of the notifications. NCP regulations, 40 CFR 300.125, require that notifications of discharges and releases be made telephonically and state that the NRC will immediately relay telephone notices of discharges (i.e., oil) or releases (i.e., hazardous substances) to the appropriate predesignated federal on-scene coordinator (OSC). The NRC receives an average of approximately 34,000 \2\ notifications per year. Of those notifications, averages of approximately 33,700 \3\ discharge or release notifications are relayed to EPA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Average number of notifications from years 2000-2006, National Response Center statistics available at, http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/incident97-02.html . See Superfund Docket EPA-HQ- SFUND-2007-0469 for a summary table. \3\ Average number of notifications made to EPA from years 2000- 2006, National Response Center statistics available at, http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/epa97-02.html . The average was calculated from those notifications that went to the EPA Regions 1 through 10, including notifications to the EPA Regions for Continuous Releases. See Superfund Docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469 for a summary table. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under EPCRA section 304(a), three release scenarios require notification. First, if a release of an extremely hazardous substance occurs from a facility at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used, or stored, and such release requires a notification under section 103(a) of CERCLA, the owner or operator of a facility shall immediately provide notice to the community emergency coordinator for the local emergency planning committees (LEPC) for any area likely to be affected by the release and to the State emergency planning commission (SERC) of any State likely to be affected by the release. (EPCRA section 304(a)(1)) EPCRA section 304(a) also requires the owner or operator of the facility to immediately provide notice under EPCRA section 304(b) for either of the following two scenarios: [cir] If the release is an extremely hazardous substance, but not subject to the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA. (EPCRA section 304(a)(2)) [cir] If the release is not an extremely hazardous substance and only subject to the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA. (EPCRA section 304(a)(3)) EPCRA notification is to be given to the community emergency coordinator for each LEPC for any area likely to be affected by the release, and the SERC of any state likely to be affected by the release. Through this notification, state and local officials can assess whether a response action to the release is appropriate. EPCRA section 304 notification requirements apply only to releases that have the potential for off-site exposure and that are from facilities that produce, use, or store a ``hazardous chemical,'' as defined by regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.1200(c)) and by section 311 of EPCRA. In establishing the RQs for the various hazardous substances, EPA adjusted the statutory RQs of CERCLA hazardous substances based on specific scientific and technical criteria that relate to the possibility of harm from the release of a hazardous substance in a reportable quantity. (See 50 FR 13456, April 4, 1985.) The adjusted RQs did not reflect the determination that a release of a substance will be hazardous at the RQ level and not hazardous below that level. EPA did not, at the time, make such a determination because the actual hazard will vary with the unique circumstances of the release. Instead, the RQs reflect the Agency's judgment of which releases should trigger notification to the federal government so that the government may assess to what extent, if any, a federal removal or remedial action may be necessary. (See 50 FR 13465.) For the purposes of making RQ adjustments under CERCLA, EPA adopted the five RQ levels of 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 5000 pounds originally established pursuant to CWA section 311 (see 40 CFR part 117). The Agency adopted the five-level system primarily because: (1) It has been successfully used pursuant to the CWA, (2) the regulated community was familiar with these five levels, and (3) it provided a relatively high degree of discrimination among the potential hazards posed by different CERCLA hazardous substances. The methodology used for adjusting RQs begins with an evaluation of the intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological properties of each designated hazardous substance. The intrinsic properties examined-- called ``primary criteria''--are aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, and chronic toxicity.\4\ In addition, substances that were identified as potential carcinogens were evaluated for their relative activity as potential carcinogens. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Chronic toxicity was defined as toxicity resulting from repeated or continuous exposure to either a single release or multiple releases of a hazardous substance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Agency ranks each intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological property on a five-tier scale, associating a specific range of values on each scale with a particular RQ value. Thus, each substance receives several tentative RQ values based on its particular properties. For example, ammonia received a tentative RQ of 100 pounds based on its aquatic toxicity levels; however, for the intrinsic property, mammalian toxicity (inhalation), ammonia received a tentative RQ value of 1000 pounds. The lowest of all of the tentative RQs for [[Page 73703]] each hazardous substance becomes the ``primary criteria RQ'' for that substance. After the primary criteria RQs are assigned, substances are further evaluated for their susceptibility to certain extrinsic degradation processes. These ``secondary criteria'' are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis, or ``BHP.'' If the hazardous substance degrades relatively rapidly to a less harmful compound through one or more of these processes when it is released into the environment, the primary criteria RQ is raised one level. The single RQ assigned to each hazardous substance on the basis of the primary criteria and BHP becomes the adjusted RQ for that substance. The single RQ approach was adopted to provide a relatively simple reporting system that does not unduly burden either EPA or the regulated community. Since releases into more than one medium often occur, the single RQ approach prevents confusion. Section 102(a) of CERCLA expressly authorizes the Administrator to set a single quantity for each hazardous substance, and the legislative history emphasizes the virtues of simplicity and administrative convenience. (For a more detailed discussion of the methodology that was used to establish the RQs for hazardous substances, see 50 FR 13465, Apr. 4, 1985.) Owners and operators of farms, like all other facilities, are required to report the release of hazardous substances into the environment \5\ in accordance with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 when it meets or exceeds the RQ of the hazardous substance. For example, releases into the environment of ammonia or any other hazardous substance, from tanks located on a farm, at or above an RQ are reportable under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Environment means, ``(A) the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, and the ocean waters for which the natural resources are under the exclusive management authority of the United States * * *, and (B) any other surface water, ground water, drinking water supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air within the United States or under the jurisdiction of the United States.'' See CERCLA section 101(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2005, EPA received a petition from the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, seeking an exemption from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements for ammonia emissions from poultry operations. The Agency published a notice in the Federal Register on December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76452) that acknowledged receipt of the petition and requested public comment. The comment period closed on March 27, 2006. Also, in 2005, EPA offered the owners and operators of animal agricultural operations an opportunity to sign up for an air monitoring study. The purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop emissions estimating methodologies for all animal agricultural operations.\6\ Over 2600 animal feeding operations, representing over 14,000 farms, signed up for the study. The monitoring study which began in the spring of 2007 includes 25 representative sites (lagoons or barns) on 21 different farms in 10 states (NC, NY, IA, WI, CA, KY, TX, WA, IN, and OK). The sites will be monitored for two years, allowing the Agency to account for emissions variability by season, and for the effect of any seasonal operational changes (such as pumping out lagoons), that could have an effect on emission levels. At the end of the monitoring study, EPA will use the data along with any other relevant, available data to develop emissions estimating methodologies. The monitoring study results will be publicly available upon completion of the study. In addition, EPA will publish the emissions estimating methodologies based on these results, within 18 months of the study's conclusion. Thus, such information will be widely available to the public. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ The National Academy of Sciences, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources appointed a 16-person ad hoc committee, the Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, to evaluate the scientific information needed to address issues raised by EPA regarding CAA regulation of air emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture aid to farmers in mitigating the effects of air emissions with modified agricultural practices. One of the findings of that Committee was, in part, direct measurements of air emissions at all AFOs are not feasible. Nevertheless, measurements on a statistically representative subset of AFOs are needed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Summary of This Action A. What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule? The scope of this proposed rule is limited to releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. Specifically, the Agency is proposing an administrative reporting exemption from the CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements as implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 302.8 and 40 CFR 355.40, respectively. The scope of this proposed rule is intended to include all hazardous substances that may be emitted to the air from animal waste at farms. (See Section I.D. for further discussion of which hazardous substances we are proposing to include within the administrative reporting exemption.) B. Proposed Definitions In proposing this rule, the Agency believes it is important to provide clarity with respect to the scope of the proposed reporting exemption. Therefore, the Agency is proposing definitions for animal waste and farm (to be added to the Code of Federal Regulations) that only pertains to regulations promulgated pursuant to CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304, specifically 40 CFR 302.3 (definitions) and 40 CFR 355.20 (definitions). Animal Waste--means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other materials typically found with animal waste. The Agency is not aware of any existing definition for animal waste and thus, seeks comment from the public on the appropriateness, clarity and completeness of this definition. The Agency also is limiting the proposed reporting exemption to animal waste that is generated on farms, and is proposing a specific definition for farm under this proposal. For this proposed exemption only, EPA defines farm, by using the definition found in the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census of Agriculture, and adopting it. Also, the Agency recognizes that Federal and state research farms utilizing farm animals are subject to the conditions experienced on other farms; therefore, EPA proposes to include Federal and state poultry, swine, dairy and livestock research farms. Farm--means (a.) any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have $1,000 or more in sales; or, (b.) a Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm. EPA seeks comment on the proposed definition for a farm, and whether an alternative definition may be more appropriate. In addition, the Agency is aware that animal waste also is generated at other facilities, such as zoos and circuses. Because the focus of this proposal is on animal waste generated or found at farms, we are not proposing to expand the reporting [[Page 73704]] exemption beyond such facilities. However, the Agency requests comment on whether the reporting exemption should be expanded to other types of facilities that also generate animal waste, and if so, what other types of facilities should be included in the reporting exemption. Any alternative approaches presented must include an appropriate rationale and supporting data in order for the Agency to be able to consider them for final action. C. What Is Not Included Within the Scope of This Proposed Rule? As noted previously, this administrative reporting exemption is limited in scope to those releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. EPA is not proposing to exempt from CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements for releases of hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental media or at any other facilities other than farms (i.e., meat processing plants, slaughter houses, tanneries). In addition, EPA is not proposing to exempt from CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements of any release of hazardous substances to the air from any source other than animal waste at farms. The Agency believes that there could be releases to the air from other sources of hazardous substances at farms where an emergency response to that release may be possible. For example, EPA is not proposing to exempt ammonia releases from ammonia storage tanks at farms. In addition, notification of a release of a hazardous substance, which meets or exceeds its RQ, from animal waste to any environmental media (other than air) is still required under this proposal. Thus, notification that there was a release of a hazardous substance that meets or exceeds the RQ where stored animal waste is released into water (i.e., a lagoon burst) would still be required under this proposal. Such notifications would alert the government to an emergency situation that could pose serious environmental consequences if not immediately addressed. Hence, those releases to the environment would still be reportable at or above their RQ as they are more likely to result in a response action from Federal, state or local governments. No EPCRA statutory requirements, other than the emergency hazardous substance notification requirements under EPCRA section 304, are included within this proposal. The proposal does not limit the Agency's authority under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA and EPCRA to address releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. D. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Administrative Reporting Exemption? EPA's rationale for this administrative reporting exemption is based on the purpose of notifying the NRC, and SERCs and LEPCs when a hazardous substance is released, and then the likelihood that a response to that release would be taken by any government agency. Upon receipt of a notification from the NRC, EPA determines whether a response is appropriate. See 40 CFR 300.130(c). If it is determined that a response is appropriate, the NCP regulations describe the roles and responsibilities for responding to the release. Thus, the question that EPA considered is whether the Agency would ever take a response action, as a result of such notification, for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. We believe not and, thus, are proposing to no longer require such reporting. This conclusion is based in part on EPA's experience.\7\ Specifically, to date, EPA has not initiated a response to any NRC notifications of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, or any other hazardous substances released to the air where animal waste at farms is the source of that release. Moreover, we cannot foresee a situation where the Agency would take any future response action as a result of such notification of releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms because in all instances the source (animal waste) and nature (to the air over a broad area) are such that on-going releases makes an emergency response unnecessary, impractical and unlikely. Typically, if a response is taken as a result of a release notification, the government may require monitoring or make recommendations to local officials regarding evacuations and shelter-in-place. While this may be an appropriate response to hazardous substances releases from tanks, pipes, vents or in train derailment situations where the emergency may result in acute exposures, the Agency does not believe that this is a necessary or appropriate response to the release of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Notifications must still be made when and if hazardous substances are released to the air at farms from any other source (other than animal waste), as well as releases of any hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental media (i.e., soil, groundwater and surface water). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several states have indicated that such response actions are unlikely to be taken as a result of a notification of releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. EPA received 26 comment letters from state and/or local emergency response agencies in its request for public comment on the 2005 petition from the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (``poultry petition''). All of those commenters supported granting the poultry petition--that is, exempting from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements for ammonia emissions from poultry operations. Generally, those agencies supported the petition because they are aware of the operations in their jurisdictions, were concerned about the resource implications of receiving the notifications (i.e., having to process the notifications), and would not conduct an emergency response as a result of the notifications. Thus, the comments received from state and/or local emergency response agencies is consistent with EPA's view. Furthermore, the Agency does not need to receive such notifications in order to enforce applicable CWA, CAA, RCRA, and/or other applicable CERCLA and EPCRA regulations at farms. EPA still retains those enforcement authorities to address threats to human health and the environment. We estimate that the private sector, state and local, and the Federal governments spend approximately three hours per release to prepare and process episodic notifications and 24.5 hours to process continuous release notifications.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ For episodic releases, this estimate was calculated using the burden hours described in the Information Collection Requests 1049.10 and 1395.06 for episodic releases of hazardous substances to the NRC and emergency notifications to SERCs and LEPCs. For continuous releases, this estimate was calculated using the burden hours described in the Information Collection Request 1445.06 for continuous release reporting requirements. Supporting statements for both information collection requests are available in the Superfund Docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on these reasons, the Agency believes it is appropriate to propose to eliminate the reporting requirement under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 for hazardous substances released to the air at farms where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste. Nevertheless, the Agency solicits comments on whether there might be a situation where a response would be triggered by such a notification of the release of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste [[Page 73705]] at farms, and if so, what an appropriate response would be. Any comments that would support such an action should include an appropriate rationale in order for the Agency to be able to consider it for final action. E. What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative Reporting Exemption? This proposed administrative reporting exemption will reduce the costs of complying with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 for those farms that release hazardous substances to air from animal waste. Entities that are expected to experience a reduction in burden and cost include both the farms that are no longer required to report those releases, as well as the Federal, state and local governments responsible for receiving the reports. The economic analysis completed for this proposed rule is available in the docket for this rulemaking and is based on the underlying economic analyses that were completed for the regulations that established the notification requirements.\9\ We estimate that this proposed rule will reduce burden on farms associated with making notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 by approximately 3,432,000 hours over the ten year period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately $160,173,000 over the same period. We estimate that this proposed rule will also reduce burden on Federal, State and local governments responsible for receiving and processing the notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 by approximately 161,000 hours over the ten year period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately $8,109,000 over the same period. In evaluating the potential burden and cost savings to those farms that would no longer be required to make notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 and the government entities that are no longer required to receive and process such notifications, we used the same universe as used in the 2003 CAFO Rule (see 68 FR 7176, Feb 12, 2003). We also assumed that over the ten year period (2009-2018) that there would be a declining number of CAFOs; however, some of those operations would increase in size. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The following documents are available in the Superfund Docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-00469: Regulatory Impact Analysis of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under Sections 102 and 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Volume 1 (March 1985); Regulatory Impact Analysis in Support of Rulemaking Under Sections 302, 303, and 304 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (April 1987); and Economic Analysis in Support of the Continuous Release Reporting Regulation Under Section 103(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (April 1990). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Rather, this proposed rule represents a reduction in burden for both industry and the government by administratively exempting the reporting requirement for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 302 and 40 CFR part 355 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0046, EPA ICR number 1049.10 for 40 CFR 302.6 (Episodic releases of oil and hazardous substances), OMB control number 2050-0086, EPA ICR number 1445.06 for 40 CFR 302.8 (Continuous release reporting requirements) and OMB control number 2050-0092, EPA ICR number 1395.06 for 40 CFR 355 (Emergency planning and notification). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained by writing to: Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1700. EPA ICR number 1049.10 covers collection requirements for notification of episodic releases of oil and hazardous substances; EPA ICR number 1445.06 covers collection requirements for the continuous release reporting requirements; and EPA ICR number 1395.06 covers collection requirements for the notification requirements for releases of hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances to both SERCs and LEPCs. Each of these information collections are affected by this proposed rule. However, this proposed rule represents a reduction in the burden for both industry and the government through an administrative reporting exemption from those reporting requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies [[Page 73706]] that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This rulemaking will relieve regulatory burden because we propose to eliminate the reporting requirement for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. We expect the net reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with reporting air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 to decrease. This reduction in burden will be realized by small and large businesses. We have therefore concluded that this proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. That is, the proposal imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector; rather, this proposed rule will result in burden reduction in the receipt of notifications of the release to the air of hazardous substances, primarily ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, from animal waste at farms. Additionally, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule reduces regulatory burden and the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. Thus, the proposal is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. There are no state and local government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this proposed rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct compliance costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks) The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically [[Page 73707]] significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule will reduce the burden associated with the notification of releases to air of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA'') Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in the Background section of the preamble for this proposed rule, the adjusted RQs do not reflect the determination that a release of a substance will be hazardous at the RQ level and not hazardous below that level. Instead, the RQs reflect the Agency's judgment of which releases should trigger notification to the federal government so that the government may assess to what extent, if any, a federal removal or remedial action may be necessary. In addition, the requirement to notify the government under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 does not require the notifying entity to take any specific action to address the release. Therefore because the notification is not specifically designed to protect human health or the environment and EPA has determined that a response action would be unlikely, EPA does not believe that exempting these releases from CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements will have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income populations. This proposed rule addresses information collection requirements for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304. No EPCRA programs, other than the emergency notification program under EPCRA section 304, are included in this proposal and the Agency is not proposing to limit CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA through this proposed rulemaking. The Agency also retains its authority to apply existing statutory provisions in its efforts to prevent minority and or low-income communities from being subject to disproportionately high and adverse impacts and environmental effects. We therefore have determined that this proposal does not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low- income populations. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 302 Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 355 Air pollution control, Chemicals, Disaster assistance, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: December 20, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION 1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. 2. Section 302.3 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Animal waste'' and ``Farm'' to read as follows: Sec. 302.3 Definitions. * * * * * Animal Waste means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other typical materials found with animal waste. * * * * * Farm means: (1) Any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have $1,000 or more in sales; or (2) A Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm. * * * * * 3. Section 302.6 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows: [[Page 73708]] Sec. 302.6 Notification requirements. * * * * * (e) * * * (3) Releases to the air of any hazardous substance from animal waste at farms. * * * * * PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION 4. The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and 11048. 5. Section 355.20 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Animal waste'' and ``Farm'' to read as follows: Sec. 355.20 Definitions. * * * * * Animal Waste as used in Sec. 355.40 only, animal waste means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other typical materials found with animal waste. * * * * * Farm as used in Sec. 355.40 only, farm means: (1) Any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have $1,000 or more in sales; or (2) A Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm. * * * * * 6. Section 355.40 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(viii) to read as follows: Sec. 355.40 Emergency release notification. (a) * * * (2) * * * (viii) Any release to the air of a hazardous substance from animal waste at farms. * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-25231 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
What to Expect from TSCA Reform Now
12/04/2010 — By jeanmariecThe new Safe Chemicals Act 2010, introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey), this year, to the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, is a long-overdue reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. If passed, the Safe Chemicals Act will compel manufacturers to develop and submit safety-testing data on chemicals produced. Only those chemicals shown to be safe, according to the EPA's classification regimen, will be allowed on the market. This is where costs can rise for the small business owner and also put a dent in larger businesses.
Cal Dooley, CEO of ACC, Interviewed
After the lame-duck session of Congress convened, on November 15, 2010, Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemical Council, gave an interview in which he stated that the new, more Republican Congress will influence how TSCA reform and other bills affecting the chemical industry will be positioned. From the ACC perspective, a commitment to safety must be balanced with ensuring that any policies that are developed by the EPA and other agencies allow the US chemical industry to be at the forefront of developing innovations and technologies. Dooley explained that this approach is crucial to maintaining the chemical manufacturing base in the United States.
The ACC Board of Directors considers TSCA reform one of their highest priorities and the ACC is building a strong alliance of stakeholders committed to advancing the principles of the Safe Chemical Act and others that are proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the same time, in citing EPA reform, Dooley said that the ACC will urge the agency to not produced rules so onerous that they impede investment in the United States. In light of the Safe Chemicals Act, ACC has some concerns that EPA perhaps has not yet struck the right balance.
Safe Chemicals Act 2010 and the 111 th Congress
This year, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works headed by Senator Lautenberg, collected testimony to support the passage of Safe Chemicals Act 2010 by the 111th Congress. Among other topics discussed was that of CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta and other panel members titled: “Risks of Toxic Chemicals to Children's Health.” The overall impetus of the TSCA reform bill is to take preventative measures against the detrimental consequences of ubiquitous chemical use. One of the key mandates of the Safe Chemicals Act is to encourage progress in the green chemistry arena towards minimizing toxic risk from chemicals.
Minimizing toxic risk from chemicals will require incentives to businesses with innovative technology, which is good news for all parties in the chemical industry.
The lame-duck session of the 111th Congress is to consider several pieces of legislation before the entry of the new 112th Congress this coming January. For energy and environment legislation, the House has already passed a cap-and-trade bill and an oil spill response bill. Another energy-related bill that is likely to pass during the lame-duck session is a proposal to encourage the production of electric and natural gas vehicles, because the bill has bipartisan support. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a cloture vote for Wednesday on the bill promoting the Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act of 2010.
But it appears that other major bills, including the Safe Chemicals Act, TSCA reform, will be left for next year's Congressional sessions. Until it is passed, it is difficult for us to estimate the financial burden for meeting the amended TSCA legislation, but it could range from thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the size of the manufacturer and the amount of chemicals in the inventory of the specific industry.
The Six Key Mandates of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010:
1- Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical that they produce to the EPA.
2- The EPA will identify and prioritize chemicals by their likely risk, based on their use in production.
3- Besides setting up a chemical risk triage system (described above), the bill allows the EPA to manage and ban high-risk chemicals.
4- The burden of proving the safety of a chemical rests on chemical manufacturers and users rather than on the government. The chemical cannot be sold unless EPA's safety standards are met.
5- The bill establishes a public database to house the chemical information submitted to the EPA and the decisions made by the EPA about chemicals.
6- The bill requires the EPA to establish a program to develop incentives for safer alternatives. A network of research centers will be established to conduct green chemistry research and alternatives analysis. The bill will allow new, “green” chemicals into the market using an expedited safety review process.
By JeanMarie Calvillo, Ph.D., Safetec Regulatory Specialist
Home > NASPAA Initiatives > Community Engagement Projects >
Small Community Outreach Project for Environmental Issues (SCOPe).
SCOPe is a community-based initiative to engage elected officials and staff of local governments in discussions contributing to early regulatory development. SCOPe was created to bridge the gap between small entities and federal regulators, and findings are widely disseminated to policy makers, rule writers and other interested organizations. SCOPe meetings and discussions are led by faculty in NASPAA graduate programs of public affairs and administration and/or local government institutes. These programs and institutes regularly provide development, training, and evaluation services to local governments. The SCOPe outreach network is built on this extraordinary resource and the trusted relationships that exist between local governments and NASPAA programs. As neutral experts with a public service mission SCOPe teams bring the highest caliber of professional expertise to the early consultation process.
From 1998 until 2004, SCOPe was funded through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation and NASPAA. Current SCOPe activity is funded by a contract between the EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, and NASPAA, and focuses on e-rulemaking capabilities in small communities.Project Reports [ view/download in Acrobat Reader Format ]
EPA Delivers Holiday ‘Sucker Punch' to U.S. Economy
Warner Todd Huston | December 4, 2010
From the Heartland Institute…
While we were all preparing to see family and friends over the Thanksgiving, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency was exploiting the holiday lull to sneak through new regulatory “guidance” that threatens to inflict further damage to the U.S. economy. The Heartland Institute has been on the case since the EPA gave the public just 15 days (with a long holiday weekend smack dab in the middle) to weigh in on the process. You can see all of Heartland's coverage at this link .
A post at Heartland's policy blog, Somewhat Reasonable , also outlines the situation. I pass this information along in case you want to share with your readers this attempt to get “cap” without the “trade” implemented by bureaucratic fiat, after the real bill flopped in Congress. You can also get a sense of what's happening by reading below my signature.
Jim Lakely
Communications Director
The Heartland Institute
heartland.org/Heartland Institute Explains the Unconstitutional Power Grab
While you were getting ready for the Thanksgiving holiday, the Environmental Protection Agency was cooking up a turkey of its own — a new “permitting guidance for greenhouse gases” that is unconstitutional and would extend the reach of Obama's EPA into how nearly every American business may operate. It's nothing less than a sucker punch to the U.S. economy, and an end-run around failed “cap-and-trade” bills that would deliver cap without the trade.
The Heartland Institute worked over the holiday weekend to draw attention to this outrage, and will continue to do so in the days and weeks ahead.
Check out Heartland's coverage of this issue by clicking here .
Heartland's senior fellow for legal affairs, Maureen Martin, summarizes this bureaucratic power grab:
On November 15, Obama's EPA issued a 100-page, highly technical “guidance” document proposing that as of January 2, 2011, large sources of greenhouse gas emissions—such as power plants, steel operations, and petroleum refineries—be required to obtain preconstruction and operating permits limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and to install the “best available” technology to do so.
Comments on these new rules are due on or before December 1, 2010, a 14-day period interrupted by the four-day Thanksgiving holiday. And EPA says it will review only comments on technical aspects of the new rule.
Previously, no such permits were needed, and no greenhouse gas limits existed. It is widely agreed such new rules will drive up the costs of electricity, iron and steel, gasoline, and anything else produced by large operations, with these costs passed along to consumers already staggered by a jobless “recovery” from the recession.
James M. Taylor, Heartland's senior fellow for environmental policy, has also weighed in:
Forcing power plants to purchase and implement the “best available” technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions every time a plant is built or any kind of significant maintenance or renovations occur, however, means by definition that electricity prices are going to start rising in a manner that will make the economy-shocking energy price spikes during the summer of 2008 seem downright wimpy by comparison.
For more information on this subject, click here. If you'd like to interview any of Heartland's environmental policy experts for a story, please contact Tammy Nash ( tnash@heartland.org ) or Jim Lakely ( jlakely@heartland.org ) via email, or call 312/377-4000.
The Heartland Institute is a 26-year-old national nonprofit organization based in Chicago. Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
EPA Releases Interim Guidance on Institutional Controls for Public Comment
December 3, 2010
On November 30, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published notice of its interim final
guidance, “Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing
Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites” (Guidance). The Guidance provides agency personnel with
information and recommendations for planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional
controls (ICs) for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), Brownfields, federal facility, underground storage tank (UST), and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) site cleanups. This Guidance has the potential to affect both ongoing and
completed cleanups done under these federal programs. Comments on this interim final Guidance are
due to EPA by January 14, 2011.
ICs are nonengineered instruments used to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination
and to protect the integrity of a response action. ICs include administrative and legal controls such as
easements, zoning controls, and deed notices.
This Guidance seeks to clarify the roles and responsibilities of government agencies and private parties
in implementing and maintaining ICs at contaminated properties. To that end, the Guidance contains
recommendations for full life-cycle planning of ICs; an evaluation of their effectiveness; language
drafting considerations; implementation of specific proprietary, governmental, and informational
controls; monitoring and reporting to maintain ICs; and the enforcement of proprietary and
governmental controls.
The Guidance spans 27 pages and discusses a myriad of considerations.1 The following are highlights
from the Guidance:
Full life-cycle planning recommendations. The Guidance recommends full life-cycle planning
during remedy selection that should include input from outside sources in order to ensure that the
most appropriate response, including any ICs, is selected. Site leads are encouraged to document,
in writing, any arrangements between parties for the implementation, maintenance, and
1 The full version of the Guidance is located online at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ba9030.[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)] [Notices] [Page 74045-74046] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no10-78] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0894; FRL-9233-7] Guidance on Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is interested in soliciting individual stakeholder input regarding the issues addressed in the EPA interim final guidance, titled Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites. The Agency will consider the information gathered from this notice and other sources before finalizing this guidance. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2011, 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2010-0894 by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov Fax: (202) 566-9744 Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room; EPA West Building, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND- 2010-0894. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any [[Page 74046]] personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or superfund.docket@epa.gov . The http:// www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm . Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund docket is (202) 566-0276. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chip Love, phone: (703) 603-0695, e- mail: love.chip@epa.gov , Construction and Post Construction Management Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA's interim final guidance on Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites addresses some of the common issues that may be encountered during the cleanup process and provides recommendations on how ICs can complement other response actions (such as engineered response action components) at a site. This interim final guidance also provides an overview of EPA's policy regarding the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the various aspects of planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional controls. The guidance is available at http:// www.regulations.gov . This guidance does not represent a regulation, and is not subject to the formal provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. However, EPA recognizes the potential importance of this guidance to its Federal, state, local, and tribal partners, to the regulated community, and to the public, and therefore through this Federal Register notice seeks public input on the topics addressed in this interim final guidance and its implementation. This public input opportunity will be available until January 14, 2011. EPA intends to evaluate whether any changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate and expects to issue a final version of this guidance. For purposes of this Federal Register notice, EPA in particular seeks input on the following: Are there ways EPA can better evaluate the capacity, willingness, and financial assurance of state, tribal and local governments to assist with ICs and engineering controls when such controls are necessary at a site? What potential barriers exist with respect to state, local, and tribal government involvement with ICs and what tools or possible solutions could EPA promote to improve the awareness of and involvement in IC activities? How can site managers better engage and involve affected community stakeholders and local land use decision-makers concerning ICs that may be needed and relied upon to complement other response actions (i.e., engineered response action components) at cleanup sites? How can information concerning ICs and the underlying land and/or resource use restrictions be made more available to local land use decision-makers? How can EPA better identify and account for the full life cycle costs of ICs? EPA intends to accept input on the interim final guidance until January 14, 2011. EPA also intends to fully consider all public input in evaluating whether changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate, and to issue a final version of this guidance. Dated: November 23, 2010. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 2010-30111 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Ninth Circuit: Anti-Injunction Act, CERCLA Do Not Bar State Court Environmental Claims
Posted on December 2, 2010 by Teeple Leonard & ErdmanIn a recent case out of Montana, the question was raised whether, in an environmental case, a purported polluter can obtain an injunction in Federal Court against a subsequently filed State Court proceeding. The Ninth Circuit's answer was a resounding “no.” ( Montana v. BNSF Railway Company )
BNSF Railway Company and its predecessors in interest operated a railroad maintenance and fueling facility near Livingston, Montana. In 1988, the State of Montana, alleging that the land upon which the facility was located was contaminated with diesel fuel and other contaminants, filed an environmental suit against BNSF in Federal Court, which included a claim under the Montana “little CERCLA” law. (“CECRA”, Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 75-10-705, et. seq.)
In 1990, BNSF and the State entered into a consent decree requiring BNSF to conduct a remedial investigation, and laying out a plan for implementation of a final remedy. The consent decree did not apply to any claims by persons or parties other than those named in the decree. As late as November 2010, the State of Montana continues to pursue remediation under the consent decree.
In 2007, 152 private plaintiffs filed claims against BNSF in Montana state court alleging contamination of private property and seeking various remedies. BNSF then moved in Federal court to enjoin the prosecution of the private parties' state court actions. The state court plaintiffs opposed BNSF's motion, citing the Federal Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits Federal courts from entering injunctions restraining state court proceedings, with the exception that Federal Courts may enjoin state court proceedings in order to protect or effectuate the Federal court's judgments.
In this case, BNSF argued that the private parties' investigation and restoration claim was identical to the State's earlier claim in the consent decree litigation, and since those claims and issues had already been decided, a conflict between the Federal court and the state court cases was possible. In the event of such a conflict, or possible conflict, the exception to the anti-injunction prohibition could be applicable.
The Ninth Circuit panel held, however, that there was no conflict between the Federal consent decree case and the state court cases. Nothing in CERCLA, the Court said, pre-empts a state court cause of action for environmental cleanup and/or damages. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Federal and state court actions were not identical, therefore the Federal action did not decide the issues presented by the subsequent state court claim.
While the ruling in this case is not remarkable, it represents another in a long string of cases that hold that, in most situations, state court actions for environmental clean-up and/or monetary damages are not pre-empted or precluded by prior or contemporaneous Federal cases involving the same sites and parties.
Agency Name
National Science FoundationDescription
The Environmental Sustainability program supports engineering research with the goal of promoting sustainable engineered systems that support human well-being and that are also compatible with sustaining natural (environmental) systems. These systems provide ecological services vital for human survival. The long-term viability of natural capital is critical for many areas of human endeavor. Research in Environmental Sustainability typically considers long time horizons and may incorporate contributions from the social sciences and ethics.This program supports engineering research that seeks to balance society's need to provide ecological protection and maintain stable economic conditions. There are four principal general research areas which are supported, but others can be proposed: * Industrial Ecology * Green Engineering * Ecological Engineering * Earth Systems EngineeringTopics of interest in Industrial Ecology include advancements in modeling such as life cycle assessment, materials flow analysis, input/output economic models, and novel metrics for measuring sustainable systems. Understanding materials flow and taking advantage of such understanding to substitute less toxic, longer lived materials are important areas for consideration. The effects of substituted materials on waste streams can be explored. Innovations in industrial ecology are encouraged. Engineering tools for estimating costs and ramifications of sustainable development must be developed, tested, and evaluated.In Green Engineering, research is encouraged to advance the sustainability of chemical processes, other manufacturing processes, green buildings, and infrastructure. Many programs in the Engineering Directorate support research in environmentally benign manufacturing or chemical processes. The Environmental Sustainability program supports research that would affect more than one chemical or manufacturing process or that takes a systems or holistic approach to green engineering for infrastructure or green buildings. Of particular interest is the next generation of water and wastewater treatment that will dramatically decrease material and energy use, consider new paradigms for delivery of services, and promote longer life for engineered systems. Improvements in distribution and collection systems that will advance smart growth strategies and ameliorate effects of growth are research areas that are supported by Environmental Sustainability. Innovations in prevention and management of storm water, wastewater technology, indoor air quality, recycling and reuse of drinking water, and other green engineering techniques to support sustainable construction projects may also be fruitful areas for research.Ecological Engineering topics should focus on the engineering aspects of restoring ecological function to natural systems. Engineering research in enhancement of natural capital to foster sustainable development is encouraged. Many communities are involved in stream restoration, revitalization of urban rivers, and rehabilitation of wetlands that require engineering input. What is the fundamental engineering knowledge that is necessary for ecological engineering to function sustainability?Earth Systems Engineering considers aspects of large scale engineering research that involve mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to climate change, and other global scale concerns.All proposed research should be driven by engineering principles, and be presented explicitly in an environmental sustainability context. Proposals should include involvement in engineering research of at least one graduate student, as well as undergraduates. Incorporation of aspects of social, behavioral, and economic sciences is welcomed.The duration of unsolicited awards is generally one to three years. The average annual award size for the program is $100,000. Any proposal received outside the announced dates will be returned without review.The duration of CAREER awards is five years. The submission deadline for Engineering CAREER proposals is in July every year. Please see the following URL for more information: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08051/nsf08051.jsp.Proposals for Conferences, Workshops, and Supplements may be submitted at any time, but must be discussed with the program director before submission.Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) replace the SGER program. Please note that proposals of these types must be discussed with the program director before submission. Further details are available in the PAPPG download, available below. Please refer to the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), January 2009, (NSF 09-1) when you prepare your proposal.
Link to Full Announcement
NSF Program Description 09-7643Bill Ruckelshaus on EPA: 'Battered Agency Syndrome?'
Dec 4 2010, 4:45 PM ET
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- With an angry crop of conservative Republicans about to grab the reins of power in the House of Representatives, the Environmental Protection Agency is once again in danger of "battered agency syndrome," said Bill Ruckelshaus, the moderate Republican who headed the 40-year-old agency during the Nixon and Reagan administrations.
As the respected granddaddy and founding administrator of EPA, Ruckelshaus, now 78-years-old, is worried about his offspring at a time when some members of his own party ran for Congress on a platform of abolishing the controversial regulatory agency. Incoming House committee chairs plan endless oversight hearings to rake EPA over the coals on the hot button issue of climate change. With congressional gridlock over greenhouse gas legislation, the Obama administration is under scrutiny as to how far it will go in regulating the problem using EPA's existing powers under the Clean Air Act.
EPA seems to be a lightning rod for the anti-government fervor that strikes Washington on a regular basis, Ruckelshaus said in an interview Friday at a Harvard University conference on the agency's 40th birthday. For veterans of environmental battles of yore, to some degree "it's déjà vu all over again" (thanks Yogi!). "It's cyclical. The more active EPA is, the more controversy," said Ruckelshaus, who was appointed by President Nixon as the first administrator when the agency opened for business on December 3, 1970.
Later, after a Newt Gingrich-led backlash against the Clinton administration ushered in a Republican-controlled House with anti-regulatory sentiments in the 1994 mid-term elections, Ruckelshaus expressed concern that "violent swings" in power were having a "devastating effect on EPA."
His warnings, in a 1995 essay published on the agency's 25th birthday, are highly reminiscent of where we are today:
"We should be able to recognize certain repeating patterns. And so we do. We recognize, as perhaps the newer members of Congress do not, that the current rhetorical excess is yet another phase in a dismaying pattern. The anti-environmental push of the nineties is prompted by the pro-environmental excess of the late eighties, which was prompted by the anti-environmental excess of the early eighties, which was prompted by the pro-environmental excess of the seventies, which was prompted.... But why go on. The pattern is quite clear. The new Congress may believe that it is the vanguard of a permanent change in attitude toward regulation, but unless the past is no longer prologue, the pendulum will swing back, and we will see a new era of pro-environmental movement in the future."
As he said then, the constant pendulum swings take their toll: "The impact of all this on the agency is devastating. EPA suffers from battered agency syndrome.... Why is EPA now the agency everyone loves to hate?"
In his talk Friday, Ruckelshaus recalled the environmental fervor of 1970, when "we had the smell, touch, and feel type of pollution" with visibly dirty air and water that compelled both the Nixon administration and Congress to act. He noted that Nixon talked about "making peace with nature" in his 1970 State of the Union address, adding, "Can you imagine a conservative Republican saying that today?"
Sixteen major pieces of environmental legislation to clean up the air, water, solid waste, protect endangered species, and so forth, were enacted during the Nixon administration, said Ruckelshaus, all with strong bipartisan support. EPA was created to carry them out. "Citizens were demanding something be done, and the government was responding," he said.
But Nixon himself was hardly an environmentalist. In fact, Ruckelshaus said, Nixon became increasingly disillusioned with his own environmental initiatives as the 1972 election neared and felt Congress was going too far. At a celebration of Earth Day's 40th anniversary last spring at the Nixon library, Ruckelshaus saw some of the presidential papers from that era, including a Clean Water Act document on which Nixon had handwritten "bullshit" in a marginal note. Nonetheless, Nixon "had the most extraordinary record any President has ever had," he said.
It is Ruckelshaus himself, however, who has gained rock star status in the environmental world for his steady and constant leadership over the past four decades and his record of high integrity and bipartisanship in times of crisis. At the end of the Nixon presidency, as the Watergate scandal engulfed Washington, Ruckelshaus took over as acting director of the FBI and then moved to the Justice Department, where he famously resigned during the "Saturday Night Massacre" rather than carry out Nixon's orders to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. In 1983, after Reagan Administration EPA head Anne Gorsuch resigned amidst controversy, Ruckelshaus rode back into Washington to become the agency's 5th Administrator.
Today, Ruckelshaus, a longtime Seattle resident in the other Washington who backed Obama for President in 2008, is concerned once again that EPA finds itself in the political crosshairs. Asked by this correspondent how serious the threat to EPA is this time around, he responded cryptically that he was doing "threat analysis to figure out how big the threat is," later explaining that he was privately consulting with several former EPA administrators about the depth of the agency's current troubles.
Wearing a black jacket with tan patches on the elbows, the lanky, grey-haired lawyer drew a standing ovation from the crowd attending the EPA anniversary conference, which was organized by the Harvard University Center for the Environment as well as Harvard's schools of law, government, and public health. "We have made solid progress," Ruckelshaus said, "but we can't relax or begin to slide backwards.... We've got a lot left to do."
He was largely preaching to the choir in a pro-environment audience filled with many present and former EPA alums. However, one of the speakers, C. Boyden Gray, a longtime Washington insider and White House legal counsel to President George H.W. Bush, cautioned in an interview that current environmental concerns in the nation's Capitol were not just on the Republican side of the aisle. Gray noted that Midwestern and Southern Democrats had also questioned the Senate climate change legislation and that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) was among those seeking to delay EPA action on greenhouse gas emissions. "Politically it's something EPA just ought to wait on," said Gray, who championed market initiatives to curb acid rain and ozone-depleting chemicals in the early 90s.
But Lisa Jackson , the energetic 48-year-old chemical engineer who is EPA's 12th administrator, spoke proudly in her keynote address of the Obama administration's "aggressive environmental agenda" and her hopes to get bipartisan support to "meet on a common ground." Jackson, who worked her way up the EPA ranks for 16 years before going on to become New Jersey's environment commissioner, noted that the recent mid-term elections were "threatening to roll back EPA's efforts. " She contended that the "message last month was not that people want less environmental protection.... There is no evidence environmental protection hinders economic growth."
She delivered that message throughout the celebratory anniversary week, including a Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that "a clean environment strengthens our economy." Jackson, who paid tribute to Ruckelshaus "as the standard every single administrator strives to meet," also drew a standing ovation following her talk.
One of those listening closely was 19-year-old Julia Mason, a Harvard sophomore majoring in environmental science and public policy who was energized after hearing "superstars" Ruckelshaus and Jackson talk. "I am absolutely concerned" about what is happening in Washington, she said. "With a lot of opposition, it's really difficult to accomplish anything."
Mason is part of a younger generation coming along to help carry out the grass roots environmental agenda, as college students did some 40 years ago. She found out that change isn't easy while working in her hometown of Alamo, CA to get solar panels installed in the schools there. Her take-home message: "Take small steps, be persistent and patient, and you can make progress."
Reg Stat is the EPA site of all the activity published by the Agency in the Federal Register covering the period between calendar years 2005-2009. The site offers summary statistics using statistical data in the form of charts, tables and brief summary overviews to inform the public about the types of documents published annually.
Total Volume of Published Documents
Total Federal Register Activity
Statistics on the total number of documents published each year in the Federal Register
- By EPA Program Offices and Regions
- By Regulatory Stages (Notices, Proposals, Final Rules)
- By Type
Key Statistics on "Administrator-Signed Rules"
The focus of the site is to provide basic metrics on the more prominent rules signed by the EPA Administrator during the last five years. (Read the definition of "Administrator-Signed rules")
Distribution of Administrator-Signed Rules
Statistics on Administrator-Signed rules by EPA program office, Region, and year
- By EPA Program Offices and Regions
- By Regulatory Stages (Notices, Proposals, Final Rules)
- By Frequency
- Proposed and Finalized in Same CY
Development Time of Administrator-Signed Rules
Statistics on the time it takes to move from initiation to publication on a final rule
- By EPA Program Offices
- By Regulatory Stages
- Histograms
Regulatory Review of Administrator-Signed Rules
Statistics on regulatory actions designated "significant" under EO 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review"
- By EPA Program Offices
- Average and Median Review Times
- Histograms
News Releases By Date
- EPA Home
- Newsroom
- News Releases By Date
- EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Financial ....
- Share
EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Release date: 12/06/2010
Contact Information: Richard Yost, yost.richard@epa.gov, 202-564-7827, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites small businesses to participate in a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel on a proposed rule that would establish financial responsibility requirements for classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry. The requirements will help ensure that owners and operators of the facilities, not taxpayers, foot the bill for environmental cleanup.
The panel will ask a selected group of Small Entity Representatives (SERs), to provide advice and recommendations on the proposed rule to the panel. EPA seeks self-nominations directly from small entities that may be subject to the rule requirements. Self-nominations may be submitted through the link below and must be received by December 20, 2010.
The requirements will be developed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly called Superfund.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires EPA to establish a federal panel for rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBAR panel will include representatives from the Small Business Administration, the Office of Management and Budget and EPA.
More information: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/hardrockmining.htmGreenlaw from NRDC China , NRDC China Program, Beijing
www.greenlaw.org.cn is a web resource created and operated by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the China Environmental Culture Promotion Association (CECPA). It is China's first web resource devoted to strengthening environmental protection in China through law, policy and the power of the public. NRDC is a leading international environmental group with offices in Beijing and various locations in the United States. CECPA is the leading organization in China focused on promoting environmental culture. If you have any feedback about our newsletter or the Greenlaw website, feel free to send us an e-mail at feedback@greenlaw.org.cn. Visit our new English site at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog .
Who They Are
NRDC is the nation's most agressive action group of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.
Their Priorities
- Curbing Global Warming and Creating the Clean Energy Future
- Reviving the World's Oceans
- Defending Endangered Wildlife and Wild Places
- Protecting Our Health by Preventing Pollution
- Ensuring Safe and Sufficient Water
- Fostering Sustainable Communities
Quick Facts
- Founded: 1970
- Mission: To safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends. Read more
- Status: Not-for-profit, tax-exempt, membership organization
- Staff: 300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts
- Supporters: 1.3 million members and e-activists
- Offices: New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing
var articleheadline = "AstraZeneca raided in EC competition investigation";
AstraZeneca raided in EC competition investigation
By Sarah Arnott
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Europe's competition watchdog has raided a string of pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca over possible collusion in delaying the introduction of cheap, generic drugs.
AstraZeneca was the only company yesterday to admit to involvement in the inquiry – with regards to an ulcer and heartburn treatment called esomeprazole which the company sells branded as Nexium.
"We can confirm we are subject of inspections by certain competition authorities which relate to alleged practices regarding esomeprazole in Europe," a spokeswoman for AstraZeneca said yesterday. "We are co-operating with the authorities. AstraZeneca takes compliance with all laws seriously and has a fundamental commitment to doing business in an ethical and proper manner."
AstraZeneca was just one of several drugs companies subject to "unannounced inspections" by European and national regulators on 30 November.
The European Commission stressed that the raids were only a preliminary step in its investigations, and were not indications of guilt. But it said that its concerns, if born out, would constitute a violation of Europe's anti-trust rules which prohibit restrictive business practices.
The watchdog "has reason to believe" that the companies concerned "may have acted individually or jointly, notably to delay generic entry for a particular medicine", the Commission said in a statement yesterday.
European Union Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia backed up the commission's move in a speech in Brussels. "We have the responsibility to ensure that consumers are not charged unjustified bills for their medical needs," Mr Almunia said. "I will continue to enforce with determination competition rules in the pharmaceutical sector."
The competition authority's latest raids are part of a long-running European investigation into patent settlements in the drug industry.
Launching a series of investigations last January, the commission expressed concern that consumers' access to lower-priced medicines was being delayed or blocked "where an originator company pays of a generic competitor in return for delayed market entry of a generic drug".
Full patent protection does not run out until 2014 on Nexium – which was AstraZeneca's top-selling drug last year, grossing $5bn (£3.2bn) in worldwide sales. But "data exclusivity" expired in March – allowing rival drug companies to rely on AstraZeneca's research when filing for a licence to produce a generic copy of the drug (and take their chances with regards to the originator's intellectual property).
A number of companies in Germany and Spain have produced generic versions of esomeprazole in recent months. In Germany, AstraZeneca has sought injunctions against them, and the company is also defending against claims in other EU countries that the Nexium patents are invalid.
The raids this week are not AstraZeneca's first brush with Europe's anti-trust authorities. It has previously come under commission scrutiny for blocking or delaying market access to generic versions of its drugs and, in 2005, was ruled in breach of EU rules with regards to a similar drug called Losec and fined €60m (£51m).
Robert Vidal, at European law firm Taylor Wessing, said yesterday: "It is striking that the commission has chosen to initiate a new investigation and inflict more pain on the same company over a similar drug. The commission is confident that the law relating to 'market abuse' cases is on its side and it may be trying to make an example of companies like AstraZeneca in order to deter other companies from implementing similar practices."
AIG returns to bond market
By Nicole Bullock in New York
Published: December 1 2010 01:05 | Last updated: December 1 2010 03:24
AIG paid a premium on its return to the credit markets with its first bond sale since its rescue by the government two years ago.
The insurer sold $2bn of bonds with a $1.5bn tranche priced at a spread, or risk premium of 362.5 basis points over US Treasuries.
American International Group (AIG), Maiden Lane II and III
Background
American International Group (AIG) is a large, diversified financial services company that, as of June 30, 2008, reported consolidated total assets of slightly more than $1 trillion. During the months prior to September 2008, short-term funding markets had come under severe stress, placing significant liquidity pressures on AIG that hindered its ability to obtain adequate funding from banking institutions or in the market, and threatened to prompt a default by the firm.
The potential failure of AIG during the financial crisis posed significant systemic risks: AIG's insurance subsidiaries were among the largest in the United States; state and local governments that had lent money to AIG might have suffered losses; retirement plans had purchased insurance from AIG; banks and insurance banks had large exposures to AIG; a default by AIG on its commercial paper likely would have disrupted the entire commercial paper market. These potential disruptions to financial markets and losses by other major financial institutions, at a time when the financial system was already under severe stress, likely would have resulted in a significant further reduction in the availability of credit to businesses and households, worsening the recession.
A range of programs to support AIG were authorized by the Federal Reserve under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations. The programs are administered by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). In addition to the programs described below, AIG also obtained funding through the Commercial Paper Funding Facility .
AIG Revolving Credit Facility
On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced that it would lend to AIG to provide the company with the time and flexibility to execute a plan that would allow it to restructure to maximize its value. Initially, the FRBNY extended a line of credit to AIG for up to $85 billion. The revolving credit facility was established to assist AIG in meeting its obligations as they came due and to facilitate a process under which AIG would sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy.Initially, under the terms of the agreement, interest was to accrue at a rate of the three-month Libor plus 850 basis points, with a floor of 350 basis points on the three-month Libor. The loan had a two-year maturity, and was collateralized by a substantial portion of the assets of AIG and its primary non-regulated subsidiaries as well as its equity interest in all of the regulated subsidiaries. The loan was expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the firm's assets. In consideration for the establishment of the credit facility, the AIG Credit Facility Trust, a trust established for the sole benefit of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, received a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG.
On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced a restructuring of the government's support for AIG to enhance AIG's ability to repay the credit extension while retaining adequate time to dispose of its assets to achieve favorable returns. As part of the restructuring, the Treasury acquired $40 billion in newly issued preferred stock in AIG, using funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). In addition, the maturity of the loan from the FRBNY was extended to five years, and the maximum amount of credit available under the facility was reduced from $85 billion to $60 billion. The interest rate applicable to outstanding advances on the line was reduced to the three-month Libor plus 300 basis points, and the fee on available, but undrawn funding under the facility was reduced to 75 basis points.
On March 2, 2009, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced a second restructuring of the financial assistance to AIG, which included the creation by the Treasury of a new equity capital facility for AIG of up to approximately $30 billion. As part of this restructuring, the terms of the credit facility were again adjusted to remove the 350 basis point floor from the three-month Libor. In addition, the outstanding balance of the credit facility was reduced by approximately $26 billion in exchange for the Federal Reserve's receipt of preferred interest in two of AIG's major life insurance subsidiaries, and the total amount of credit available under the revolving credit facility was reduced from $60 billion to $35 billion.
On September 30, 2010, the FRBNY, AIG, and the Treasury entered into an agreement in principle for a series of integrated transactions to recapitalize AIG, including the repayment of all amounts owed to the FRBNY under the revolving credit facility. In the interim, one of AIG's subsidiaries, American Life Insurance Company (ALICO), was sold to a third party, and another subsidiary, American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA), successfully completed an initial public offering (IPO). Initial cash proceeds of these transactions in excess of $26 billion are on deposit in segregated accounts at the FRBNY pending the consummation of the recapitalization plan. The parties are continuing to work on definitive documentation to implement the agreement in principle.
The revolving credit facility was established under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Securities Borrowing Facility for AIG
As of October 1, 2008, AIG had drawn down approximately $62 billion of the revolving credit facility. As expected, these drawdowns had been used, in part, to settle transactions with counterparties returning securities that had been borrowed from AIG in exchange for cash. In light of the expectation that additional securities borrowing counterparties would decide not to renew their securities borrowing positions with AIG, and the continuing fragile position of the financial markets, on October 8, 2008, the FRBNY was authorized to extend credit to certain AIG subsidiaries in exchange for a range of securities. Under this program, the FRBNY could borrow up to $37.8 billion in investment-grade, fixed-income securities from AIG in return for cash collateral. This program allowed AIG to replenish its liquidity, and the securities served as collateral to protect the FRBNY.The securities borrowing facility for AIG was discontinued after the establishment of the Maiden Lane II facility, which is discussed in greater detail below. All securities were returned to AIG and all cash collateral was returned to FRBNY. As part of the restructuring announced on November 10, 2008, the FRBNY created Maiden Lane II LLC, and the proceeds from the establishment of the LLC were used to repay in full the securities borrowing arrangement and terminate that program.
The securities borrowing facility was established under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC
On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced a restructuring of the government's financial support to AIG. As part of this restructuring, two new limited liability companies (LLCs), Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC, were created. On December 12, 2008, the FRBNY began extending credit to Maiden Lane II LLC, which was formed to purchase residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) assets from AIG subsidiaries. Details of the terms of the loan are published on the FRBNY website . Maiden Lane II LLC was funded with a $19.5 billion senior loan from the FRBNY and $1 billion from AIG through a contingent purchase price adjustment. The loan extended by the FRBNY is collateralized by the asset portfolio. The proceeds from the assets held by Maiden Lane II LLC are used to repay the loan to the FRBNY, including accrued interest. The loan has a stated six-year term that may be extended at the discretion of the FRBNY. The loan has an interest rate of the one-month Libor plus 100 basis points. Under the terms of the deal, proceeds from the portfolio are paid out in the following order: operating expenses of Maiden Lane II LLC, principal to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, and deferred payment and interest due to AIG. Any remaining funds will be shared by the FRBNY and AIG, with 5/6 going to the FRBNY.
On November 25, 2008, the FRBNY began extending credit to Maiden Lane III LLC, a limited liability company formed to purchase multi-sector collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) on which AIG had written credit default swap and similar contracts in return for the cancellation of those contracts. Details of the terms of the loan were published on the FRBNY website . Maiden Lane III LLC was funded with a $24.3 billion senior loan from the FRBNY and a $5 billion equity contribution from AIG. The loan from the FRBNY is collateralized by the portfolio of assets. The proceeds from the assets held by Maiden Lane III LLC are used to repay the loan to the FRBNY, including accrued interest. The senior loan was issued with a stated term of six years that may be extended by the FRBNY. The interest rate on the loan is the one-month Libor plus 100 basis points. Under the terms of the deal, payments from the proceeds of the portfolio are made in the following order: operating expenses of Maiden Lane III LLC, principal due to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, principal due to AIG, and interest due to AIG. Any remaining funds will be shared by the FRBNY and AIG, with 67 percent going to the FRBNY.
The loans to Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC were extended under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Preferred interest in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC
On December 1, 2009, the FRBNY received preferred interest in two special purpose vehicles, AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC, that were formed to hold the outstanding common stock of AIG's largest foreign insurance subsidiaries, American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA) and American Life Insurance Company (ALICO). In exchange, the outstanding balance of, and the amount of credit available excluding capitalized interest and fees, under the revolving credit facility was reduced. By establishing the AIA and ALICO SPVs as separate legal entities, these transaction positioned AIA and ALICO for future IPOs or sales.
Authorization to extend credit to AIG's domestic life insurance companies
On March 2, 2009, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced another restructuring of the government's support for AIG. As part of the restructuring plan, the Federal Reserve Board authorized the FRBNY to lend up to approximately $8.5 billion in credit to special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that would be established by domestic life insurance subsidiaries of AIG. The SPVs would repay the loans from the net cash flows they receive from designated blocks of existing life insurance policies held by the parent insurance companies. The proceeds of this new credit would be used to repay an equivalent amount of borrowing by AIG under the revolving credit facility established by the FRBNY in September 2008. The amounts lent, the size of the haircuts, and other terms of the loans would be determined based on valuations acceptable to the FRBNY. No credit was extended to AIG under this arrangement.
Data
Visit the Excel viewer for more information. Filter and sort features have been added to the column headers in the Excel spreadsheet to assist you with searching and to allow for the creation of custom datasets. Click on the arrow button in each column header to view and select the different filter and sort features.
- AIG Revolving Credit Facility: Excel (109 KB)
CSV Data (55 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (1 KB)- AIG Securities Borrowing Facility: Excel (58 KB)
CSV Data (18 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (4 KB)- Maiden Lane II LLC: Excel (32 KB)
CSV Data (3 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (2 KB)- Maiden Lane III LLC: Excel (32 KB)
CSV Data (3 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (2 KB)- AIA ALICO: Excel (30 KB)
CSV Data (3 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (1 KB)
The following information on the AIG revolving credit facility is provided (on a weekly Wednesday basis):
Data Description
Date As-of date for data presented Balance Total amount of loan outstanding, in millions of dollars Facility ceiling Maximum amount available under line of credit, in millions of dollars Interest rate The nominal annualized interest rate charged to AIG on the loan amount, in percent Principal Component of outstanding balance, in millions of dollars Capitalized interest Component of outstanding balance, in millions of dollars Commitment fees Fee based on unused amount under line of credit. Component of outstanding balance, in millions of dollars The following information on AIG Securities Borrowing Facility transactions is provided:
Data Description
Loan date The date of the trade Borrower AIG Inc. is the borrower in all transactions Loan amount The total dollar amount lent by the FRBNY on the particular trade date, in billions of dollars Interest rate Interest rate determined pursuant to Master Securities Loan Agreement, which varied according to the type of collateral. The maximum and minimum rates charged on each particular trade date have been included, in percent Collateral The total market value with interest of the collateral pledged on the particular trade date, in billions of dollars UST & Agency Unsecured debt issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, federal government agencies, and government-sponsored enterprises. Includes agency-guaranteed MBS/CMOs, in millions of dollars Municipal Securities issued by state and local governments and agencies, in millions of dollars Corporate Corporate securities (excluding convertible bonds and equities) and money market instruments, in millions of dollars MBS/CMO Agency Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO) issued by government-sponsored enterprises, in millions of dollars Funds lent, by entity Breakdown of dollar amount lent by FRBNY by AIG subsidiary, in millions of dollars The following information on Maiden Lane II LLC transactions is provided (on a quarterly basis from December 2008 to October 2010):
Data Description
FRBNY senior loan Loan from the FRBNY to Maiden Lane II LLC, in millions of dollars Principal balance (including accrued and capitalized interest) Total amount of the loan outstanding, including accrued and capitalized interest as of quarter end, in millions of dollars Accrued and capitalized interest during quarter Interest on the loan that was accrued and added to the balance of the loan, in millions of dollars Repayment during quarter Repayment from proceeds of the portfolio, in millions of dollars AIG fixed deferred purchase price As part of the asset purchase agreement, AIG subsidiaries were entitled to receive from Maiden Lane II LLC a fixed deferred purchase price plus interest on the amount. This obligation is subordinated to the senior loan extended by the FRBNY, and it reduced the amount paid by Maiden Lane II LLC for the assets by a corresponding amount
Summary of RMBS Portfolio Composition, Cash and Cash Equivalents, and Other Assets and Liabilities, Fair Value
Alt-A (ARM) Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) backed by Alternative-A (Alt-A) adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), in millions of dollars Subprime RMBS backed by subprime mortgages, in millions of dollars Option ARM RMBS backed by Option ARMs, in millions of dollars Other Includes all asset sectors that, individually, represent less than 5 percent of aggregate outstanding fair value of securities in the portfolio, in millions of dollars Cash and cash equivalents Holdings of cash or other comparable, short-term, highly liquid assets, in millions of dollars Other assets Includes interest and principal receivable and other receivables, in millions of dollars Other liabilities Includes accrued expenses and other payables, in millions of dollars Securities portfolio distribution by credit rating Based on fair value, and the lowest of all ratings for each security, in percent The following information on Maiden Lane III LLC transactions is provided (on a quarterly basis from December 2008 to October 2010):
Data Description
FRBNY senior loan Loan from the FRBNY to Maiden Lane II LLC, in millions of dollars Principal balance (including accrued and capitalized interest) as of quarter end Total amount of the loan outstanding, including accrued and capitalized interest as of quarter end, in millions of dollars Accrued and capitalized interest during quarter Interest on the loan that was accrued and added to the balance of the loan, in millions of dollars Repayment during quarter Repayment from proceeds of the portfolio, in millions of dollars AIG equity contribution As part of the asset purchase agreement, AIG purchased a $5 billion equity contribution, which is subordinated to the senior loan extended by FRBNY, in millions of dollars. Summary of Portfolio Composition, Cash and Cash Equivalents, and Other Assets and Liabilities, Fair Value
High-Grade ABS CDO High-grade asset-backed security collateralized debt obligations (ABS CDO), in millions of dollars Mezzanine ABS CDO Mezzanine asset-backed collateralized debt obligations (ABS CDO), in millions of dollars Commercial real estate CDO Commercial real estate-backed collateralized debt obligations (CDO), in millions of dollars RMBS, CMBS, & Other Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS), and other securities, in millions of dollars Cash and cash equivalents Holdings of cash or other comparable, short-term, highly liquid asset, in millions of dollars Other assets Includes interest and principal receivable and other receivables, in millions of dollars Other liabilities Includes accrued expenses and other payables, in millions of dollars Securities portfolio distribution by credit rating Based on fair value, and the lowest of all ratings for each security, in percent The following information on the preferred interest in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC is provided:
Data DescriptionReturn to top
Date As-of date for data presented Preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC Book value of preferred interest, in millions of dollars Accrued dividends on preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC Amount of dividends that have been accrued, in millions of dollars Preferred interests in ALICO Holdings LLC Book value of preferred interest, in millions of dollars Accrued dividends on preferred interests in ALICO Holdings LLC Amount of dividends that have been accrued, in millions of dollars
Sections of this page
Related
Facilities and Programs
Last update: December 3, 2010
- Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Purchase Program
- Term Auction Facility (TAF)
- Central Bank Liquidity Swap Lines
- Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF)
- Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) and TSLF Options Program (TOP)
- Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF)
- Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF)
- Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF)
- Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF)
- Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase, and Maiden Lane LLC
- American International Group (AIG), Maiden Lane II and III
- Bank of America
- Citigroup
Audit
The information below is provided as required by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The page will be updated as reports and other information becomes available.Reports prepared by the Comptroller General
Under section 714 of title 31, United States Code.Annual Federal Reserve System financial statements
Annual audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve System and independent auditors' reports.Reports to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate (Relating to Emergency Lending Authority)
- Reports on Emergency Lending Authorized Pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act since July, 21, 2010 In accordance with Section 1101 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board will publish reports issued to the Congress not later than seven days after the Board authorizes any new loan or other financial assistance under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The Board also will publish written updates every 30 days with respect to any such loan or other financial assistance. There have been no new emergency loans authorized by the Board.
Other information about the liquidity and credit programs and other monetary policy tools that the Federal Reserve used to respond to the financial crisis
Other information helpful in understanding the accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks
- Reports Pursuant to Section 129 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 The Federal Reserve filed reports with Congress pursuant to section 129(b) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The reports provided updates concerning the lending facilities established by the Board under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act that are currently outstanding. In October 2009, the Board began to incorporate these reports into its monthly report on "Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet."
- Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet monthly reports The Federal Reserve prepares these monthly reports as part of its efforts to enhance transparency in connection with its various programs to foster market liquidity and financial stability and to ensure appropriate accountability to the Congress and the public concerning policy actions taken to address the financial crisis.
- Transaction data Transaction detail related to the liquidity and credit programs and other monetary policy tools that the Federal Reserve used to respond to the financial crisis that emerged during the summer of 2007.
International Lease Finance Prices $1 Bln Senior Notes Offering
12/2/2010(RTTNews) - International Lease Finance Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (AIG: News ), said Thursday that it has priced and entered into an agreement to issue and sell, its public offering of $1.0 billion aggregate principal amount of 81/4% senior notes due 2020.
The notes will be issued by International Lease Finance at the initial price of 99.160% of the principal amount. The offering is expected to close on December 7.
The aggregate net proceeds from the sale of the notes, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, fees and estimated offering expenses, will be about $976.4 million and will be used by International Lease Finance for general corporate purposes, including the repayment of existing indebtedness.
Click here to receive FREE breaking news email alerts for American International Group, Inc. and others in your portfolio
ROBERT McCARTNEY
Debacle over drinking water deals a blow to CDC and EPA
When it comes to something as simple and basic as ensuring that our drinking water doesn't poison our children, you'd think federal scientists and environmentalists would hustle to give the public the fullest and most reliable information as quickly as possible.
You'd also think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency would go out of their way to publicize it when the government's own research finds that the risk posed by lead in the water nationwide is greater than previously described, and that one of the EPA's top recommended solutions is useless.
You'd be wrong.
Those are two important lessons to be drawn from Wednesday's release of a CDC report on the 2004 crisis of lead in the water in the District. In the official research paper, the nation's premier public health agency finally confirmed in full scientific detail that it completely bungled its initial work that tried to minimize the risk in the water.
I'm glad that the CDC ended years of denial and stonewalling. But its credibility suffered considerably because it took so long and acted only under sustained pressure from safe-water advocates, the media and Congress.
"They were too quick to publish a flawed study, and they were too slow to retract it, when they knew that others were relying on it," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of a House subcommittee that issued a blistering report in May of the CDC's handling of the issue.
Moreover, the CDC and EPA have done virtually nothing this week to alert the public about the report even though it raises major questions about government policies on lead pipes used in between 3 million and 6 million households nationwide.
The report contains two troubling findings. First, it says that young children and expectant mothers are at elevated risk of lead poisoning if they live in homes served by lead pipes, regardless of the age of the housing and even if the water in the system as a whole is considered safe by EPA standards.
Basically, that puts in question the safety of drinking water in numerous houses in older neighborhoods in cities including Washington, Chicago, Detroit and Providence, R.I.
"What it does is say that the EPA lead in water standard is not itself sufficient to stop higher incidence of blood lead in children," said Marc Edwards, the award-winning Virginia Tech environmental engineering professor who spearheaded the long campaign that ultimately forced the CDC to reverse itself.
When exposed to lead, young children risk suffering diminished IQ. The main threat in old homes comes from lead in paint and dust, and the added danger posed by water is subtle and hard to quantify. But the new report says it's real.
"We need public education," Edwards said. "It's not a cause for panic, but that change in the CDC message is very profound."
Edwards suggested that residents of District homes served by lead pipes follow D.C. Water's recommendations to have their water tested. If the household includes children under the age of 6, it'd be wise to use filtered or bottled water, or at least flush the pipes for a couple of minutes before drinking.
The CDC report also confirmed something that Edwards and other experts concluded years ago: It does no good to replace just some lead pipes serving a home. It's necessary to remove them all to be sure of solving the problem.
Many specialists, including some at the EPA, believe partial replacements actually make the problem worse, at least temporarily. That's partly because the work can dislodge lead particles within the pipes.
The implications of the new finding are potentially staggering. They suggest that the EPA, which officially supports partial lead-pipe replacements, has been giving the public bad and costly advice since 1991 despite growing pressure to alter its position.
For instance, under EPA guidance, the District spent $97 million for 17,000 replacements. Of those, 15,000 were the partial variety found to be worthless at best.
To its credit, D.C. Water sharply reduced partial replacements in 2008. It decided they were aggravating the problem. The exception is when such work is necessary to fix broken pipes, in which case D.C. Water pays for lead monitoring and filters.
Recommending partial replacements is "still part of the [EPA] rule, in spite of this fairly large and extensive field test in Washington, D.C., that indicates it doesn't work," D.C. Water General Manager George S. Hawkins said.
"That rule ought to be changed Monday," he said.
As of Friday afternoon, however, despite requests from journalists, the EPA hadn't commented.
Miller, who heads the investigations and oversight subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee, said he suspected the CDC took so long to issue its report partly because of the human instinct "to be slow to admit error." Miller also faulted a tendency in government agencies to want to reassure the public even when the facts warranted otherwise.
"There has been a tendency . . . to kind of pat people's hands and say everything's fine when there are real questions about whether the public health is being endangered by environmental exposures," Miller said. However, he added, government's proper role "is to tell people the Lord's own truth. And if that causes people to worry, then they should worry."
I dislike promoting public anxiety, but amen to that.
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing” – Thomas 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, YrekaThis 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.
We have buried our dead once already
By Gary Lake Daily News Posted Nov 30, 2010Medford, Ore. —
CREATOR, I am not wise, Spiritually mature or as kind to my enemies as I wish I could be. I am perplexed at the path you have chosen for me, and the battles it leads my family and friends into. I know not why these things are happening again to my people by neighboring Tribes that experienced the very same thing when gold was discovered along the Klamath River 160 years ago.
With great conviction of my heart I DO KNOW this ... Today Water is the NEW Gold, and the Shasta People are being subjected to soft-genocidal practices and socioeconomic extermination tactics that will forever wipe a great race of People from the books of history if the dams are removed along the Klamath River, that are entirely inside aboriginal Shasta Lands.
NOWHERE in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) are the Shasta People recognized. The Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement (KHSA) exposes the Shasta People's burial grounds, Spiritual sites, ceremonial grounds and villages which are currently protected by reservoirs behind the dams that are to be taken out.
Said agreements will expose Shasta Human remains to be stolen and sold by looters for horrific private collections. The KHSA creates land transfers for fish and restoration purposes with no regard whatsoever to the original aboriginal Peoples of said territory, the Shasta People.
Great Creator, on this historic day of peace and friendship I humbly ask that you will open the hearts of the good Karuk, Yurok, Hoopa and Klamath People and let them think about what it is that their leaderships are about to do ... The Shastas have buried our dead once already, and then helplessly watched them covered over by water denying our access to practice certain inalienable human rights of Shasta Customs and Cultural practices.
We are fraught with the idea of having to collect bones from the banks of the river and once again bury that of which are not stolen or lost forever. How can we soothe the Spirits of so many souls when their bodies are scattered in pieces and strewn along the muddy banks of a ruined river?!
On this day that has duplicit meaning to Native Americans and non-Indians alike, I pray for compassion, Love and proper action with regards to the Shasta People. Sincerely and with great respect, God Bless ALL American People.
Gary Lake is a Konomihu-Shasta Indian from Medford, Ore. who has been spending much of his time of late in Yreka.Copyright 2010 Siskiyou Daily News. Some rights reserved
CropWorld North America 2011 Conference
February 8 and 9, 2011 at The Westin in Charlotte, North Carolina
Viewpoints: Water wars hinder sound decision-making
By Stan Dean
Special to The Bee Published: Friday, Dec. 3, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 17AIt is unfortunate that the wastewater discharge permit for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District is being updated in such a frenzied atmosphere. Normally, the Regional Water Quality Control Board would step through its procedures to update the permit and come out with requirements that protect our waterways in a reasonable manner.
However, California's water wars surrounding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have escalated the politics, increased the stakes and ramped up the rhetoric and myths. In addition, the water board may or may not have a quorum on its hearing date Thursday, yet it still plans to hear the permit item – with or without a quorum, further complicating the decision-making process.
In this pressured environment the water board is stretching its discretion to the limit, and perhaps beyond its legal authority, by writing a very strict permit that is not supported by compelling, sound science. It is troubling that the strict permit mandates could cost the Sacramento region $2 billion in new wastewater treatment processes, raising rates for homeowners from $20 per month to about $60 per month, with proportional increases on businesses.
The Delta ecosystem is suffering a serious collapse. However, there is still no consensus on the most important drivers in the declining health of the Delta. The effects of water exports, invasive species, habitat loss and water quality have all been cited. The newly formed Delta Stewardship Council will be making a renewed effort to prioritize the causes of the Delta decline, but this has not yet happened.
There are valid questions remaining. Is water quality 1 percent of the problem, 5 percent of the problem, 20 percent of the Delta problems? We simply don't know.
In some respects, the wastewater treatment plant improvements required by the permit are like a big experiment; try it and see if it works. If this experiment were to cost $200 million, passing the price tag to Sacramento ratepayers might be acceptable; however, $2 billion is another matter.
Despite efforts to pin blame for the Delta's decline on the ammonia in the sanitation district's discharge, the science on the issue is contradictory and incomplete. We do know, however, that we should remove about half of the ammonium we discharge today to protect future conditions in the Delta, because science has given us a clear answer to that question. This reduction would actually return ammonia concentrations in the Delta to levels that existed in the 1980s, long before the ecosystem problems we are experiencing today.
But the current draft permit goes much further by mandating the removal of all ammonia – although the impacts of that action have not been studied and the need to do so remains unproven.
The permit also requires expensive filtration and disinfection technology that would have little noticeable effect on conditions in the Delta.
The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District has the job of protecting public health, protecting the environment and keeping costs to our ratepayers affordable.
The district takes these responsibilities seriously. Our 99.9 percent compliance rate and more than $20 million investment in environmental efforts over the past decade clearly demonstrate our commitment to protecting the Sacramento River.
However, our responsibility to our ratepayers requires that we demand that regulatory actions be proven to be necessary, reasonable and based on sound and compelling science, as the Clean Water Act and California Water Code dictate.
Unfortunately, most of the water board's draft permit recommendations do not meet those criteria.
The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District is not – as some have claimed – ignoring science or simply being obstinate.
We do, however, believe that it is our obligation to seek a reasonable balance between environmental protection and cost to ratepayers.
That is why we cannot support the regional board's draft permit recommendations.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/03/3229405/water-wars-hinder-sound-decision.html#ixzz172yqyzRNCAFA Helped the Court to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction
Adoma v. University of Phoenix, Inc . , No. CIV.S-10-0059 LKK/GG, 2010 WL 3431804 (E.D. Cal. Aug 31, 2010).
In this case, although a District Court in California disposed of all the federal claims, it exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because the plaintiffs established that the amount in controversy exceeded the threshold requirements of CAFA.
The plaintiffs, Adoma and Abbaszadeh, who worked as Enrollment Counselors for University of Phoenix and its parent company, brought an action under the FLSA and California Labor Code.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants maintained two computer systems regarding Enrollment Counselors' work--one system tracked the Counselors' availability for taking enrollment calls and another was used to track overtime hours worked. The overtime work recorded by the former system was not recorded by the latter system; thus, the plaintiffs claimed they were not paid for “off-the-clock” overtime. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants paid them the wrong hourly rate for overtime, and that the defendants caused employees to miss meal periods. In addition, the plaintiffs brought state law claims for waiting time penalties and for inaccurate pay stubs.
Other suits for overtime pay were pending against the defendants--one of which was-- Sabol v. The University of Phoenix, No. CV 09-03439-JCJ (E.D. Pa.). Because, the Sabol court certified a nationwide FLSA collective action; under first filed rule, this Court transferred the FLSA claims to the Sabol court, and thus declined to exercise jurisdiction over the FLSA claims advanced in this case.
Because the order transferring the FLSA claims to Sabol court disposed of all federal claims and the complaint only asserted supplemental jurisdiction as a basis for jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding subject matter jurisdiction. After the parties briefed the Court, it concluded that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d).
While holding so, the Court noted that the defendants were citizens of Arizona and the named plaintiffs were citizens of California. Besides, the Court found that the aggregation of potential class members' claims established that the amount in controversy exceeded §5 million.
The Court stated that the potential class included well over 1,000 members. On the “off-the-clock” overtime claim for which named plaintiff Adoma sought class certification, she alleged individual compensatory damages in excess of $34,000 and claims that evidence already produced demonstrated $4,732.47 in liability. On the plaintiffs' claim for statutory waiting time penalties, the plaintiffs sought up to the statutory maximum of $4,000 per employee (albeit only for a sub-class estimated to include 500 to 700 employees). The defendants argued that Adoma was entitled to no more than $1,750 in waiting time penalties. The Court remarked that even the reduced figures, if aggregated, exceeded the jurisdictional amount. ( E.g., 1,000 class members x $4,700 + $1,750 x 500 = $5,575,000.) Because the amount “in controversy” for these claims exceeded the statutory threshold, the Court found that the jurisdiction over class claims was proper under §1332(d).
Accordingly, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
Power Industry Eyes Work With EPA On Plan To Avoid Rule 'Train Wreck'
Power industry officials are crafting a strategy for working with EPA to avoid fears of a "train wreck" of compliance costs and other burdens from pending agency air, water, waste and climate rules due within the next five years, though other industry officials are looking to the GOP-led House next year to restrict EPA's rulemaking authority.Key Adviser Floats EPA -DOE Plan To Address Reliability Impacts Of Rules
The chair of a key Department of Energy (DOE) advisory panel is suggesting a new EPA-DOE process to assess the impact pending EPA rules could have on electric grid reliability, an emerging proposal for resolving fears from industry, lawmakers and others that a slew of agency rules will have adverse impacts on electricity generation.
Groups Push Major Electric Power Sector Overhaul To Boost Clean Energy
The Center for American Progress (CAP) is pushing a major overhaul of the electric power sector including changes to the tax structure and new FERC directives to promote clean energy resources, but some industry observers doubt whether the plan will gain traction in the divided 112th Congress because it could raise utility costs.Likely Inaction On RES During Lame Duck Shifts Focus To Grants Renewal
Congress is unlikely to pass a renewable electricity standard (RES) in the lame duck session, say congressional staffers and renewable energy industry officials, prompting industry groups to shift their focus to having lawmakers instead pass an extension of a federal grants program for renewable energy projects.FERC Touts 'Transformative' Proposal For Integrating Renewables In Grid
FERC officials say a new commission proposal offers "transformative" plans for how to better integrate renewable energy resources into the electricity grid, including provisions requiring utilities to schedule transmission on 15-minute intervals which could benefit wind, solar and other renewable sources by providing greater scheduling accuracy.Industry Sees Upton Allowing EPA Auto GHG Rules As Energy Panel Chair
Rep. Fred Upton's (R-MI) bid to chair the Energy & Commerce Committee next year is winning support from some automobile industry officials who say the lawmaker would likely allow EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for cars to continue, compared to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who might try to limit or scrap the rules if he takes the committee's top spot.Foes Seek To Expand Limits On EPA Climate Rules Beyond Rockefeller Plan
Industry groups and lawmakers are weighing options to expand the scope of a proposal by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to block EPA from regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources by also exempting pending air permits from GHG limits or excluding GHGs from case-by-case permit technology reviews.States, Industry Eye GOP To Strip DOE Of Nuclear Waste Fund Authority
State utility commissioners and nuclear power industry officials say they are looking to key Republicans to take up a bill next year that would end what they say is DOE's sub-par management of a federal fund for building a central nuclear waste repository, arguing that the plan echoes the GOP's campaign arguments of fiscal responsibility.Lack Of Cleanup Plan Could Sideline Nuclear Waste Panel, Activists Warn
Recent reports that EPA and other agencies are struggling to determine who would oversee cleanup in the event a major nuclear power plant accident dispersed radiation offsite could overshadow the efforts of a presidential commission intended to devise a strategy for managing the plants' radioactive waste, anti-nuclear activists are warning.DOE, EPA, Treasury Work On Financing To Help Facilities Meet Boiler Rule
DOE is in talks with EPA and the Department of Treasury to find ways to help facilities pay for the cost of installing emission controls on hundreds of thousands of boilers covered by the agency's pending air toxics rule for the units, an apparent nod to industry, lawmakers and others who have decried the high cost of the rule.EPA Vows 'Case-By-Case' Oversight To Ensure TRI Reporting For Coal Ash
EPA officials are vowing to conduct "case-by-case" oversight to ensure power plants and other generators of coal ash and coal combustion residuals (CCRs) report their waste releases to the agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) even before the agency makes its landmark determination on whether to strictly regulate the waste as "hazardous."Newsroom Notes
Honda Suggests California ZEV Rule May Thwart National GHG Standard
American Honda company officials are questioning California regulators about whether a proposed overhaul of the state's zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) standards may thwart efforts by state and federal agencies to reach a deal on a new round of national greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel economy rules for 2017-2025 model-year vehicles. The company officials are suggesting that several compliance options for meeting the new GHG standards may be blocked by the proposed ZEV regulation, which generally requires automakers to ramp up sales of hybrid-electric, plug-in electric, battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles between now and 2025.Industry Criticizes Lack Of Detail In EPA's Draft E15 Tanks Guidance
Some petroleum industry experts are criticizing EPA's just-released draft guidance on the compatibility of underground storage tanks (UST) with fuels that contain more than 15 percent ethanol (E15) and biodiesels, saying the document presents little new relevant information for tank owners and operators on how to prevent leaks due to corrosion.Utilities, States Oppose Future Policies As Part Of FERC Transmission Plan
Several utilities and state officials are urging FERC to reject a proposal endorsed by the renewable energy industry and others to require consideration of future public policies in transmission planning, arguing that inclusion of hypothetical policy directives could create planning logjams and usurp legislative and regulatory policy-making powers.Activists Reject Challenges Over FERC Jurisdiction For Transmission Plan
Environmentalists are rejecting claims that FERC lacks jurisdiction to implement a sweeping proposal to reform transmission planning and cost allocation, arguing that the changes are vital to ensure just and reasonable rates and maintain grid reliability while calling for FERC to clarify how to include renewable energy and other public policy goals in transmission planning.Grid Planners Urge FERC To Clarify Public Policy Goals In Transmission Plan
Electricity grid operators are urging FERC to clarify what constitutes a public policy objective that would need to be considered as part of planning processes within the commission's sweeping transmission reform proposal, warning that a definition that is too broad could create a policy "circus" that may spur lawsuits.
Pharmaceutical Industry Questions Legality Of EPA Drug Disposal Guidance
The pharmaceutical industry is questioning the legality of an EPA guidance laying out prescriptive measures for hospitals to reduce the influx of drugs in wastewater -- and ultimately to source waters -- saying it is beyond the scope of EPA's jurisdiction and is inconsistent with other federal requirements.Water Agencies Blast California Plan To Set Numeric Toxicity Limits
Wastewater treatment and stormwater agencies in California are criticizing a state plan to set statewide numeric whole effluent toxicity (WET) objectives and use those objectives to set effluent limitations, arguing that the policy is scientifically and technically flawed and would result in many discharges being falsely labeled as "toxic" and therefore in violation of water quality standards.EPA Extends Comment Period For Proposed Water Test Method Changes
EPA is granting a 30-day extension to its comment period for proposed changes to acceptable procedures for testing wastewater effluent, heeding calls from some industry groups that the original 60-day comment period was insufficient to properly analyze and comment on the thousands of pages of supporting documents included in the proposed rule.Risk Policy Report - 11/23/2010
Facing Fears Over Rules' Costs, EPA Moves To Increase Benefits' Estimates
EPA is moving to update and likely raise some of its years-old estimates for quantifying the health and mortality benefits of its regulations, such as the value of reduced asthma cases or lives saved, a policy that could help the agency fend off growing criticisms from industry and GOP lawmakers that its rules are too costly while providing little benefit.Activists, Industry At Odds Over Future Of Key 'Green' Chemistry Standard
Environmentalists and industry groups are at odds over the adequacy of a landmark proposal for a national green chemistry standard, with some environmentalists calling for the "green" moniker to be dropped because the draft standard does not allow consumers to assess the relative toxicity and energy efficiency of various chemicals.EPA Sees Hurdles In Bid To Extend Endocrine Testing To Water Toxics
EPA's plan to expand its controversial and oft-delayed endocrine disruptor screening program (EDSP) to require testing of drinking water contaminants as well as pesticides presents new challenges for the agency in large part because it is more difficult to identify parties responsible for testing ubiquitous water contaminants than registered pesticides.Industry Shifts Burden To GOP House For Crafting TSCA Proposal In 2011
Chemical industry officials are downplaying environmentalists' suggestions that the burden rests with industry to offer a legislative proposal for reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) next year, saying they are looking to the GOP-led House in the 112th Congress to take the lead on crafting a proposal.EPA Extends Comment Period For Proposed Water Test Method Changes
EPA is granting a 30-day extension to its comment period for proposed changes to acceptable procedures for testing wastewater effluent, heeding calls from some industry groups that the original 60-day comment period was insufficient to properly analyze and comment on the thousands of pages of supporting documents included in the proposed rule.Activists Aim To Force Agency Consultation On Dispersants' Species Impacts
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is seeking to force EPA and the Coast Guard to consult with wildlife agencies on the endangered species impacts from dispersants and other oil spill response technologies before preauthorizing their use in Alaska.Activists Seek EPA Enforcement To Push Policy For 'New' Nano-Pesticides
Environmentalists are urging EPA to reconsider the safety of an already-registered copper-based wood treatment pesticide because it contains nanoscale ingredients, a case that if brought could begin to implement, and possibly expand, a long-stalled agency policy subjecting existing pesticides that contain nanoscale material to regulation as "new" products.EPA Seeks Expert Advice To Complete Phthalates Assessment Urged By NAS
EPA is planning to hold an expert consultation to provide advice on how the agency should respond to recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as it assesses the cumulative risks of six phthalates -- a review that will likely grapple with warnings from the Academy and others that any cumulative assessment will underestimate risk if it does not include other chemicals that also act upon the same target organs.Data On Particulate Link To Higher Blood Pressure May Justify Strict Air Rules
Researchers are pointing to new data they say strengthens the link between traffic emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and increased blood pressure, which could help resolve inconsistencies with existing research on the issue and "further strengthen" the justification for EPA emission rules to reduce PM2.5.Industry Sees State, TSCA Legal Challenges To Green Chemistry Rules
Industry groups subject to California's landmark green chemistry regulations are likely to file a lawsuit in state court arguing the state's toxics department is overstepping its authority by requiring the release of confidential business information (CBI) or trade secrets, according to sources.GOP Vow For Permanent Security Plan Could End Water Utility Exemption
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), incoming chair of the Homeland Security Committee, is vowing to make permanent authorization of interim Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chemical security rules a top priority next year, which sources say is unlikely to require companies to use inherently safer technologies, or less risky alternative chemicals and processes.Advisers Urge USGS To Better Justify Major Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Federal science advisers are supporting the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) plan to triple the size of its water quality monitoring program -- used by EPA and other agencies in regulatory decisions -- but are urging USGS to better justify the proposal, which could help a future push to win vital new congressional funding for the project.EPA Plans New TRI Method For Launching Emergency Planning Efforts
EPA is revising its method for determining whether local officials must revise their emergency response plans to prevent harm from some Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS), a rulemaking EPA is launching in response to an industry request to re-examine the rationale for listing the herbicide paraquat dichloride as an EHS when it is handled as a solid in an aqueous solution.Industry May Urge OMB To Expand EPA's Planned TRI Waiver For 'Products'
Wood treatment and other industry groups are planning to ask the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to expand a planned EPA rule that industry says unlawfully narrows a long-standing policy clarifying when toxic releases from many finished wood products are exempt from reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Industry, Activists Craft Model Fracking Rules To Strengthen State Measures
Industry and environmentalists have begun working together on model rules that states could adopt to govern well construction and other underground requirements for energy operations that use the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, an approach one source says could complement voluntary audits of state oil and gas rules.
Update - FDA Bill in Senate
Despite the delays, the so-called "Food Safety Modernization Act" ( S.510 ) remains a major threat to local food networks and market-based food systems. S.510 empowers the FDA with totalitarian authority over the whole gamut of food, and would give the regulatory agency the ability to wantonly impose burdensome requirements on even the smallest of food processors, e.g. a local family farm.
Hoping to quell the concerns of liberty activists, proponents of expanding the government's control over what we put into our own bodies point to the latest version of S.510, which includes a few provisions that recognize the difference in scale between large manufacturing plants and your local farms; however, the vast majority of these provisions are actually left to the FDA's discretion. In other words, it will be up to whomever Obama puts in charge of the FDA to decide whether or not your local food network is crushed by federal regulations, or simply shut down if the G-men have "reason to believe" the food on the premises is contaminated....
EPA Seeks To Stop States' Use Of Strict Discharge Limit For Building Sites
EPA is taking steps to stop a host of states from using its strict numeric discharge limit for the construction industry while the agency revises it, a move that could address industry fears that states would use the water quality limit in their permits even though EPA is revising it due to data errors.EPA Stormwater Rule To Include 'Flow' Metrics For Discharge Permits
EPA plans to introduce first-time "flow" metrics in stormwater permits as part of its upcoming post-construction stormwater rule, providing measurable endpoints for water quality in permits, rather than just requirements for actions to mitigate the amount and quality of stormwater entering waters.Obama Floats Preempting EPA GHG Rules In Exchange For Clean Energy
Following his party's Election Day rebuke, President Obama has opened the door to preempting EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) in exchange for a scaled-back bipartisan agreement that would at least begin to address the problem of climate change by encouraging development of clean energy choices.Water Policy Report - 11/22/2010
Activists Challenge Landmark EPA Rule For Florida Water Nutrient Criteria
Environmentalists are asking a federal court to invalidate a controversial provision in EPA's precedent-setting nutrient criteria for Florida that allows stakeholders to petition for site-specific alternate criteria (SSAC) for specific waterbodies, charging that EPA's approach allowing the SSACs to be applied to an entire waterbody, rather than a specific permit holder, is unlawful.EPA Delays Implementation Of Landmark Numeric Nutrient Rule In Florida
EPA is delaying by 15 months implementation of its landmark rule setting strict numeric nutrient limits for Florida's lakes and flowing waters, granting calls from recently elected GOP officials but rejecting calls from industry and other critics for a lengthier delay for scientific review.Bolstering EPA Efforts, USDA Plans To Strengthen Nutrient Guide For Farms
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is poised to propose ways to strengthen its nutrient management standards for farms, a move that could bolster several pending EPA and state efforts to curtail nutrient pollution from crop and livestock production that is harming water quality nationwide.EPA Support For Key 'Pristine' Waters Program Leaves Open Questions
EPA has partially approved Kentucky's landmark plan for determining how to provide increased protection to pristine waters, but activists say the agency's action fails to clarify which waters are subject to the strict requirements and could potentially spark further litigation and intensified lobbying to have EPA address the issue in a pending rulemaking.EPA Could Use Strict Mining Guide In Enforcement Over Existing Permits
EPA is pursuing an aggressive new enforcement strategy to address adverse environmental impacts from mountaintop mining projects and is considering retroactive application of its strict new Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting guidelines in enforcement actions against existing surface mining water permits, sources say.Ruling Could Boost Bill To Exempt 'Samaritan' Mine Cleanups From Permits
A just-issued appellate court's ruling that cleanup activities on abandoned coal mine sites are subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting requirements could boost prospects in the next Congress for long-stalled bipartisan legislation that would provide "Good Samaritan" waivers from those requirements for mine cleanups, Senate and other sources say.EPA Mining Guidance Obstructing State Issuance Of Reclamation Permits
EPA requirements in the agency's landmark Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting guidance for surface mining projects is obstructing West Virginia's issuance of water permits that the state must obtain before it can proceed with cleanup activities at abandoned mining sites, according to state sources and documents.Industry, States Move To Deny EPA 'Home Court' Advantage In Guidance Suits
Industry and states involved in various lawsuits challenging EPA's surface mining crackdown argue those cases should remain separate and centered in Appalachia, rather than consolidated into a single proceeding in the District of Columbia as the agency has asked, according to new court filings.Monday, November 29, 2010
High Court Won't Hear Everglades Pollution Case
(CN) - The nation's high court on Monday refused to disturb a lower court's ruling that the transfer of polluted water from one body of water to another doesn't violate the Clean Water Act.
In June 2009, the federal appeals court in Atlanta allowed the Southern Florida Water Management District to pump agricultural runoff into Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida without a permit.
Environmental groups, including the Friends of the Everglades and the Miccosukee Tribe, said the pumping violated the Clean Water Act, but the 11th Circuit said a regulation recently issued by the Environmental Protection Agency changed that.
The new regulation interpreted the phrase "navigable waters" in the Act's ban on adding pollutants to "navigable waters from any point source" to mean all bodies of water within the United States.
This so-called "unitary waters theory" meant that pollutants could be transferred from one body of water to another without requiring a permit.
Friends of the Everglades said the regulation didn't match the goals of the Clean Water Act and would result in "horrible hypotheticals," including the pumping of the most polluted water in the country into the most pristine lake.
But the 11th Circuit deferred to the EPA's interpretation, calling it "reasonable and therefore permissible."
The Supreme Court left that ruling intact by deciding not to hear the environmentalists' appeal.How to incorporate sustainability concepts into EPA programs.
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 REPUTATIONIV. 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.
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 5 TH 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. IRON MOUNTAIN MINES PROPERTIES includes 360 ACRES agricultural college patent from the United States of America State of California, 2384 ACRES mineral patents & fee simple from the United States, 137 THOUSAND ACRES IN CONDEMNATION , and 103 MILLION ACRES EXTRALATERAL TITLE WITH AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF $72 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
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 FEDERAL 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
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.
Today's redistricting battles reminiscent of 1780s
Richmond, Va. -- By Tyler Whitley | TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Published: November 27, 2010Years before the term was coined, Patrick Henry tried to gerrymander James Madison out of a Virginia congressional seat.
The two had quarreled over whether Virginia should ratify the Constitution. Gov. Patrick Henry was against it; James Madison favored it.
Madison won the 1789 election by a handful of votes.
In his book " James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights," historian Richard Labunski relates how the two men struggled in scenes reminiscent of today's redistricting battles.
Based on the 2010 census, the Virginia General Assembly will draw up new congressional districts and new legislative districts next year.
Furious at Madison's success in getting Virginia to endorse the Constitution, Henry was able to force him to run in a House of Representatives district packed with anti-Federalists. He then recruited a war hero, James Monroe , to run against Madison .
Henry also persuaded the General Assembly to approve a bill that would prevent Madison from running in a friendlier district.
The 5th Congressional District then consisted of Madison's home county of Orange, Monroe's home county of Spotsylvania , and Culpeper , Louisa , Goochland , Fluvanna , Albemarle and Amherst counties.
To choose the counties, Henry looked at the results of the voting when Virginians elected delegates to the state ratifying convention, looking at their pro-Constitution, Federalist leanings or their anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist leanings. Albemarle and Orange were the only counties whose delegates voted to ratify the Constitution.
Because voters were required to be male, 21 years or older and property owners, Labunski estimated 5,189 men were eligible to vote in the eight counties.
Shy and reticent, Madison at first didn't want to go back to the district to campaign, but friends convinced him he should. He did not like to ask for votes. Monroe , meanwhile, was known for his warm personality.
The race was a tough one, fought during cold winter months. At one point, Madison suffered a frostbitten nose while riding to a campaign appearance. There was 10 inches of snow two days before the Feb. 2, 1789, election. According to a log at Madison's home, Montpelier, the temperature at sunrise on Election Day was 2 degrees.
Madison won 1,308 to 972. About 44 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots.
Years later, Monroe succeeded Madison as president , after serving as his secretary of state and secretary of war.
The word "gerrymander" was first used after Elbridge Gerry, as governor of Massachusetts , was involved in the creation of a legislative district in 1812 that resembled a salamander. Gerry went on to serve as vice president under Madison in 1813 and 1814.
Historical Documents
Introduction and Contents(New, Jan. 21, 2007) This page contains links to a growing number of documents, dating back almost 3800 years to the time of Hammurabi, that have been among the cornerstones of human civilzation. They have influenced our perceptions and practice of statecraft, diplomacy, and the rights and responsibilities of communities, and of individuals. Their influence has persisted, often over centuries, as part of the conditions in which we live now and envision the future.
These entries are divided into two main sections: Foundations, or fundamental documents of civilization and state, and Contemporaries, documents, laws, treaties, etc. arising at specific times. You will find lists for both sections immediately below, with the links, in turn, below them. There may be two or more links for each document, including commentaries, historical background, and more. The documents are in approximately chronological order. All documents are in English; some may include versions in the original language, as well. Unless noted otherwise, the linked documents are complete.
Are there additional materials that you'd like to see linked here? We welcome leads to key documents from nations and peoples worldwide. Let us know, and we will try to find and post them.
Geotrees offers this information in the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, reconciliation and peace among the peoples and nations of the earth.
A. FOUNDATIONS LinksB. CONTEMPORARIES Links
- The Code of Hammurabi
- Translations of the Holy Qur'an, or Koran
- The Magna Carta
- New! (Sunday, January 21, 2007) The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations, or Great Law of Peace
- The US Declaration of Independence
- The US Constitution, including Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments
- The Federalist Papers, or The Federalist
- The James Madison Papers
- "Common Sense," "The Crisis," "The Rights of Man," and "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine
- Declaration of the Rights of Man (Revolutionary France)
- The Emancipation Proclamation
- The European Constitution
- The European Convention on Human Rights, with Its Five Protocols
- The Constitution of Iraq, and Transitional Law of Administration
- New! (Wednesday, January 10, 2007) Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf , or "My Struggle"
- The Downing Street Memo and Related Documents
- The 2001 US Patriot Act
- The Presidential Signing Statements of George W. Bush, 2001 and Since
- The Geneva Conventions and Protocols
- "Faith, Reason and the University," from Pope Benedict's address at Regensberg University; plus his subsequent personal apology
- The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States , 2005 edition
- S.3930 - The Military Commissions Act of 2006
- New! (Friday, December 29, 2006) The Iraq Study Group Report
- New! (Wednesday, January 10, 2007) The President's Address to the Nation on Iraq , January 10, 2007.
Additional documents will follow.
Many host sites, such as the US National Archives, offer links of their own to biographical, scholarly, or related items. Documents are often available in downloadable, printable form for your convenience.
Sources' Objectivity: Our source sites are often organizations, government or private, with their own causes and agendas. We choose them, however, because they make the documents themselves available in their original integrity, and we may offer links from different sources for a given document. By exploring the variety of knowledge and perspective available, the reader can develop a fuller, richer grasp of the contexts in which those documents and their ideas breathe and live.
We invite the reader to distinguish the documents themselves from any opinion or commentary associated with them. In fact, partisan commentary itself is always an interesting subject of rational study, analysis, and evaluation. We welcome you to the opportunity.
Knowledge and Empowerment, Personal and Shared: Our source for the presidential signing statements link, Mr. Ron Benjamin, made an important point in his note to "the Tree": "I have mixed emotions about being labeled as the source of the link: while it is the truth that I directed you to it, the associated AltaVista search took about 5 minutes and could just as easily have been done by others."
Ron reminds us that everyday people in the community, using tools available to most of us, can uncover and share important, empowering information in a relatively short time. Sometimes just a few minutes is all it takes to move from ignorance to knowledge, from bewilderment to understanding and, perhaps, to transformation. And the power of this process multiplies as we share it with others, including our young people. Let's not sell anyone short!
Special thanks, then, to Ron, and to all our contributors. We look forward to learning about what's important to you, and to making it available to others on Geotrees.Com. TOP
A. Foundations
The Code of Hammurabi (ca. 2500 BC)
From Leb.Net. / "Translated by LW KIng. With commentary from Charles F. Horne, PhD (1915) and The Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910 by the Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, MA Litt.D." TOP
- Text: The CODE OF HAMMURABI
Translations of the Holy Qur'an, or Koran
"The Qur'an (also known as the Koran) is the primary sacred text of Islam. Devout Muslims believe that only an Arabic version of this text is the actual Qur'an, so please be aware of this." (The Internet Sacred Text Archive). Posted to Geotrees on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. TOP
- Text in Unicode, in Arabic, and in the 1880 Palmer, 1876 Rodwell, and more recent Pickthall English versions:
"HYPERTEXT QUR'AN": FIVE LINKED VERSIONS from the Internet Sacred Text Archive- Text:
The M.H. SHAKIR TRANSLATION, from the University of Virginia's Electronic Text Center
The Magna Carta
From the US National Archives / "Featured Documents" section. In user-friendly modern English. TOP
- Text: The MAGNA CARTA
The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations, or Great Law of Peace
(Sunday, January 21, 2007) "The Great Binding Law - ?GAYANASHAGOWA." From the Indigenous Peoples Literature site. Additional links and information to come. TOP
The United States Declaration of Independence
From the US National Archives / "Charters of Freedom" section. TOP
The United States Constitution, with Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments
The entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Amendments 11 through 27, each with its own link below. From the US National Archives / "Charters of Freedom" section. TOP
- Text: The US CONSTITUTION
- Text: US Constitution BILL OF RIGHTS (Amendments 1 - 10)
- Text: US Constitution AMENDMENTS (Amendments 11 - 27)
The Federalist Papers, also known as The Federalist
From the Library of Congress / "THOMAS Legislative Information on the Internet" section, which also includes extensive information and links for Congressional activities. TOP
- Text: The FEDERALIST PAPERS
- Home Page: Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet
The James Madison Papers
From the Library of Congress' American Memory collection. When the linked page appears, see the links "Browse Collection by: Title / Name / Series" options in the left-hand column. Thanks to Irene Martinez for the suggestion, and for the link. TOP
- Text: The JAMES MADISON PAPERS
"Common Sense" (1776) by Thomas Paine
From the website of The Constitution Society, "a private non-profit organization dedicated to research and public education on the principles of constitutional republican government. It publishes documentation, engages in litigation, and organizes local citizens groups to work for reform." You can reach their home page using the core of the URL here. And. . . Thanks to Irene Martinez for the suggestion, and for the link. TOP
- Text: "COMMON SENSE"
Four Foundation Documents by Thomas Paine
(From the Thomas Paine pages on the UsHistory.Org website, which includes introductory and biographical information, as well. And. . . Thanks yet again to Irene Martinez for the suggestion, and for the link.) TOP
- Text: "COMMON SENSE"
- Text: "THE CRISIS"
- Text: "THE RIGHTS OF MAN"
- Text: "THE AGE OF REASON"
The Declaration of the Rights of Man, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789
From the Avalon Project at Yale Law School. TOP
The Emancipation Proclamation, complete text
From the National Park Service's website on the Battle of Sharpesburg, aka Antietam Creek. TOP
The European Constitution
Includes related and supporting pages from the University of Zaragoza, or Unizar, site. TOP
- Text: The EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION
(From the Unizar site. Includes links describing the document's development, and a bibliography link)- Unizar HOME PAGE for the European Constitution
(Includes an introduction, and links for other European treaties beginning with the Treaty of Paris, 1951)
The European Convention on Human Rights, with its Five Protocols
The document, with links. from the HR-NET Hellenic Resources Network site. Carried on a number of other sites, with additional links, as well. Thanks to Ulrike Scholl-Dorn for the suggestion. TOP
The Constitution of Iraq: Draft Constitution, and the Transitional Law of Administration
Documents in the development of Iraq's constitution: 1) current partial text of the proposed draft constitution; and 2) the earlier Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Law of Administration for the State of Iraq, on the CPA website. Both as of Wednesday, August 25, and updated by their source sites. TOP
- Text: DRAFT CONSTITUTION of IRAQ
(From the National Public Radio or NPR site)- Text: LAW OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 8 MARCH 2004
(From the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA site)
.
Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), the complete text
What were the psychological and mental conditions that catalyzed Nazi Germany and World War II? How did Hitler make the choices he did? What parallels may they have throughout history, in the roots of the future, and in human nature generally? This book may help find the answers. "A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook." TOP
- Text: MEIN KAMPF
From Project Gutenburg's Australian operation. The complete text.- PROJECT GUTENBURG, Main Page
"There are 20,000 free books in the Project Gutenberg Online Book Catalog."
The Downing Street Memo, complete text, with links
The same complete document, as hosted on two different sites, each with its own secondary comments, and links to other relevant primary documents. TOP
- Text: THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS and Links
From Downingstreetmemo.com. Includes the original documents, as well as information on the people involved and links to additional, related documents.- Text: THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS, Comments, and Links
From Tomjoad.org. The memo in its original form, with other documents and links. This site is the more overtly partisan in tone.
The 2001 US Patriot Act
Presented by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC. TOP
- Text: US PATRIOT ACT, HR 3162, October 24, 2001
(From the EPIC.ORG site. Includes links to a Patriot Act Sunset page, and a Freedom of Information Act page prepared by EPIC.ORG.)- The EPIC.ORG HOME PAGE
(Includes links to an assortment of documents and activities that bear on privacy.)
The Presidential Signing Statements of George W. Bush, 2001 - 2006
Presented by www.coherentbabble.com/ , which provides links to the statements with annotations, and to related bills and laws, at the White House and US Government Printing Office (GPO) websites. Posted to Geotrees on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.Thanks to Mr. Ron Benjamin of the OurWPFW discussion group on Yahoogroups for finding this connection. Please see our related comments in the introduction at page top. And thanks, too, to Max Obewszewski of the Baltimore American Friends Service Committee, or AFSC, for posting the US News article to his mailing list. Contact Max at mobuszewski( AT )afsc.org.) TOP
- Text: PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS, plus Annotations
- Background and Commentary:
"Bar Association Task Force Urges Congress to Push for Judicial Review of Bush Signing Statements"
(Article from US News & World Report by Elizabeth Weiss Green)
The Geneva Conventions and Protocols
Links to the four Conventions and their three Protocols, on the International Red Cross and Wikipedia sites, plus an online Reference Guide from the Society of Professional Journalists. Posted to Geotrees on Sunday, September 17, 2006. TOP
- Texts, with Background and Related Information:
The FOUR CONVENTIONS and THREE PROTOCOLS, from the International Red Cross.- Texts, and Links to Related Issues and Materials:
The FOUR CONVENTIONS and THREE PROTOCOLS, from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia- Background:
REFERENCE GUIDE ON LINE, from the Society of Professional Journalists
"Faith, Reason and the University," The Pope's Address at Regensberg University, September 12, 2006, plus His Apology, September 16.
Links to the pope's address, including his quotes about the early history of Islam, in edited extract from The Times of London , and to his subsequent apology, carried in The New York Times . Posted to Geotrees on Monday, September 18, 2006. UPDATE, September 24, 2006: The complete text of the speech is now available on the Zenit News Service site; link below. TOP
- Partial Text:
Edited Extract, from the UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBERG SPEECH, from The Times of London- Complete Text:
The COMPLETE TEXT of "FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY," from the Zenit News Service website- Text and Related Links:
The Pope's PERSONAL APOLOGY, from The New York Times
US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Both of the following links are to the Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute, or LLI. The US Code contains the UCMJ within it as Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, and you will find the following link to the UCMJ within the link to the US Code. Posted to Geotrees on Friday, September 22, 2006. TOP
- Text, with Links by Subchapter:
CHAPTER 47 - UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE- Text:
The UNITED STATES CODE
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States , 2005 Edition
A large (10 MB+, 900 page) .pdf file, which will download when you click on the link. Depending on the browser used, some may be able to read the Manual on line. After downloading, you will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this file. Posted to Geotrees on Friday, September 22, 2006. TOP
- Text, as .pdf File:
The MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL UNITED STATES (2005 Edition)
S.3930 - The Military Commissions Act of 2006
This bill was signed into law by President Bush on Wednesay, October 18. The link here will take you to the Library of Congress' "Thomas" function, with links to four successive versions of the bill. These versions reflect the forms of the bill from its introduction in the Senate. The second link, to Wikipedia, offers background and related information, as well. TOP
- Text of four versions, from the Library of Congress:
The MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006- From the online Wikipedia encyclopedia:
Background
The Iraq Study Group Report
Use this link to go to the site of the United States Institute of Peace, or USIP. "USIP was the facilitating organization for the Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton. As such, USIP is the repository for the ISG's official report, titled The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward - A New Approach , which was downloaded more than 1.5 million times from USIP's Web site in the first two weeks after the launch of the report on December 6, 2006." TOP
- Descriptive material and link for download:
The IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT: THE WAY FORWARD
President Bush's Address to the Nation on Iraq, January 10, 2007
This link displays the full text of Mr. Bush's address on the "News and Policies" web page on the official White House site. Use this site to see other news and information concerning the White House per se, and the activities and personnel of the current administration. TOP
- Text:
The PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS TO THE NATION, Wednesday, January 10, 2007- Link:
The WHITE HOUSE HOME PAGE
HOW TO READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Anthony A. Peacock, page 19 and following).
One tenant of conservatism is that of having the smallest possible government.
That is sometimes misunderstood, especially by liberal/progressives (deliberately, in some cases).
The phrase "the smallest possible government" does not really mean that we should have a "small" government. Rather it means that we should have a limited government.
It means government limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and established by the consent of those governed .
The authors of The Federalist (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), who called themselves Publius, asked in Federalist 51 “what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
By this he (they) meant that both citizens and government had to be controlled.
The best way to control government is to limit its powers. The federal government of the Constitution was to be a government of enumerated and limited powers.
Aggregate interests would be served by the federal government. All other interests, local and particular, would be served by "state legislatures (The Federalist 10:77-8).
Plubius enumerated four principal interests of the new constitutional union:
1) "The common defense of its members"
2) “The preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks”
3) “The regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States”; and
4) “The superintendence of [America's] intercourse,political and commercial, with foreign countries.”(The Federalist 23:149)
Publius affirms that men are both self-interested and ambitious. Their opinions are driven more by passion and self love than they are by reason. This connection between self-love and one's opinions is what leads so readily to faction, that most “dangerous vice” of popular governments that “a well constructed Union” must “break and control.” (Read more about this HERE .)
According to Plubius, men's personal opinions are of little import when compared to the necessity of firm and specific rules set forth in the Constitution.
The Constitution, as revealed by Plubius, was intended to mitigate two basic forms of
political conflict: conflict that originates in human passion, especially collective passion such as pride, hatred, and vanity, and conflict that originates in interests, specifically those related to property.
The two principal ends that the Constitution was to secure were the public good and private or individual rights.
The Constitution sought to mitigate the effects of faction by, on the one hand, making it difficult for a majority faction to infringe individual rights or to undermine the public good and, on the other hand, channeling faction into the less volatile forms of human conflict anchored in disputes over interests or property.
In Federalists 9–14, Publius shows how commerce, at least as directed and moderated by the new Constitution, can also promote comity, union, and American greatness. In fact, the most distinct elements of the improved “science of politics” that Publius introduces in Federalist 9 are not the four specific improvements to that science that we learn in any basic American government class: separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and representation of the people.
Rather, the most novel and important contribution to political science that the Constitution will make is “the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT,” the extended sphere of territory over which the new federal republic will preside. (9:67)
According to Plubius, Constitutionalism rejected two long-standing assumptions of classical and modern political thought: first, that only in direct democracies or small republics could stability and virtue be promoted and, second, that commerce was debasing and that its promotion spurred inequality, avarice, selfishness, vanity, and undue consumption and pursuit of luxury, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, perhaps the most famous critic of 18th century commercial society, had maintained.
Institutionally, constitutional provisions such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, the federal structure of government, and the variety of terms and methods of election for Members of Congress and the President could check factions after they had formed. Such factions, however, needed to be undermined before they could form at the level of society as well.
The enlarged republic created by the Constitution would directly assist this object. As Publius famously put it:
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.” (10:78)
The upshot of all of this is that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect and preserve the union while, at the same time, allowing individuals their specific rights, unencumbered by a powerful centralized government.
There are no restrictions imposed on citizens in the Constitution, rather there are restrictions on the powers of government.
If Plubius were alive today, he (they) would be horrified at the enormous powers that have been ascribed to the federal government at the expense of individual freedoms.
According to Plubius, there should never be a law "for the good of society as a whole" that usurped the rights of the individual.
Active Liberty : Interpreting our Democratic Constitution , by Stephen Breyer
reviewed by
Jerome Braun
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has published a book on judicial philosophy that achieves notice less because of its content than because of the author's post. The book argues for a "sociological" approach to legal interpretation, which Breyer admits has many rivals in approaches based on direct interpretation of legal language, on historical analysis of what led to this use of language, on the meaning of the language when it was written, and reliance on legal precedent pertaining to this language. What Breyer adds to sociological approaches is an imputing of values, which opens up such analyses to criticisms for being naïve, superficial, historically incorrect, short-sighted, vain, arrogant, or just plain wrong. I am not saying Breyer is guilty of all these criticisms, but that he sets himself up for them.
A basic no-no of legal analysis, and of moral analysis too, is bombastic rhetoric. In law schools students are endlessly warned about this reckless inferring of moral effects rather than proving moral effects of certain actions, but they learn when they get out (if they don't know so already) that lawyers are paid to win. In any case, judges, for appearances' sake if for nothing else, rarely come up with the ruling, “I don't know.” The result is dependence on ‘burden of proof' reasoning where a state of affairs is assumed to exist, not proven to exist, because it is assumed that the existence of society depends on this state of affairs. This is the dead opposite of the ideal of the scientific method where many aspects of the state of nature are not understood, and are openly admitted to not being understandable within the present state of knowledge. Models are used in science, but are not mistaken for reality, or shouldn't be.
Lawyers have noticed the dangers posed by judicial supremacy. Stuart Taylor in Slate quoted Thomas Jefferson in 1819 about John Marshall's Supreme Court: "The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” and Abraham Lincoln regarding the 1857 Dred Scott decision which treated slavery as eternal: “If the policy of Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made,” Lincoln said, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”
The checks and balances among the three branches collapse if the Supreme Court claims to be the final arbiter of constitutional behavior. Judicial supremacy reflects the British tradition, at least of the 18th century, that the judicial branch be free of political interference, plus the natural law tradition (more emphasized in America than in Britain ) that judged law by supposedly indisputable moral standards and a common law tradition that the law would not countenance an absurdity. You might say that since medieval European monarchs were, above all, judges and war leaders, the Supreme Court in our mixed polity is the monarchical aspect of government, sharing the powers of monarchical sovereignty with the President (who gets the war powers part, plus some powers related to foreign affairs), except that the President is not elected for life, Supreme Court judges are. Like monarchs, when judges violate standards the social reaction is unpredictable because there is no defined method for dealing with them. By the same logic, revolutions are justified by arguments of natural law.
Therefore the question arises, does this book reflect an understanding of the place of the Supreme Court in our constitutional scheme of things, or does it reflect special pleading and a desire for aggrandizement of the power of this institution? Just like the monarch who claims to be serving only "the will of the people," Breyer's analysis provides no method for actually determining when "the will of the people" is being served and when it isn't. The reason social science claims that it tries to be a science is because it tries to be objective, and is sensitive to situations where "the facts speak for themselves." Breyer offers no method for determining when "the will of the people" is not being followed since, by definition, institutions that have some connection to an election, no matter how remote, are democratic. Although he says that rules that encourage participation by the mass of citizens in government are a good thing, he never shows what standards he uses since there are times when he obviously doesn't believe democracy is such a good thing, as when it interferes with judicial supremacy in interpreting the Constitution. ‘Democracy at work' for him means everything the government does is democracy at work.
Just as predecessors on the late 19th century Supreme Court absorbed too much of Spencer's Social Statics , so that they believed Social Darwinism explained how a modern economy worked, so Breyer seems to have read too much into such works as Gordon S. Wood's The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 , coming away with the belief that because the governments that arose after the American Revolution were more democratic than colonial governments that therefore the Federal Government was the perfectly realized Democracy. In fact, all governments of Europe and America in the 18th century derived legitimacy by a bundle of claims, to conformity, to natural law, natural religion, the production of virtue in society, and the standards of "moderate" government, for which democracy, republicanism, and even monarchism were considered means rather than ends.
No doubt crediting a government with reflecting "the will of the people" - no matter the truth - is an important source of legitimacy in our times. It is now the only source of legitimacy, unlike the 18th century which took for granted the importance of community as the source for legitimacy in government, and a model for its proper functioning, even though it was slowly decaying and ceding power to bureaucracy. Breyer's whole concept of democracy is convoluted. He tries to show the American Constitution instituted a democratic government by using an idiosyncratic definition of democratic government based on "the will of the people". This was obviously not the case in the original American Constitution which not only limited the right to vote (not for women, not for slaves, and not for people who did not meet minimal property qualifications), but confined popular control to the House of Representatives, not the Senate or the Presidency. The Constitution, however, was adaptable to more democratic control later on.
For that matter, 18th century Europe boasted republican governments, particularly the United Provinces of the Netherlands and the Swiss Confederation, which served as models for the U.S. although Britain was more influential. In the 18th century, democracy, given poverty and lack of mass education, widely was considered impractical because of the dangers of mob rule. Even Thomas Jefferson, who supported democratic government, was the head of a party called the Republican Party, later the Democratic-Republican Party (a term used mostly by historians, and originally a faction of the party that supported Andrew Jackson) and only some time after Jefferson 's death called the now familiar Democratic Party. It would be as if the present day Democratic Party would be called a socialist party because certain members support socialism.
Breyer moves from his originalist argument of the Constitution reflecting the will of the people to an evolutionary argument that more participation is to be encouraged, so, whatever his glossing over 18th century conditions, he is right that now we encourage active participation of citizens. Thus, he offers an argument for deferring to legislative enactment of laws as reflecting the will of the people, without at the same time giving up the right of the Supreme Court to supervise the process or intervene, without being hampered by original intent.
Now there are circumstances when a small leap is justified, such as when the right to regulate interstate commerce is extended to modern modes of transportation analogous to the way the horse and buggy and maritime transportation was regulated. This latitude doesn't mean a judge can announce himself a cross-dressing monarchist and declare that republican government means monarchy because if only the writers of the Constitution knew what he knows now they would agree with him. There is a basic principle of Constitutional interpretation that a vague generality or value cannot overrule a specific requirement laid out in the Constitution. Even this rule in a sense can be overruled if it would result in an absurdity, but such occasions are few and far between.
Breyer seems to believe in this rule of Constitutional interpretation - except when he doesn't. The same can be said for his general approach to interpreting laws. The second half of the book is actually quite good, and is by far the most useful part. He details the reasoning used to make distinctions relevant to judging cases in free speech, the relation between the Federal government and the states, privacy, affirmative action, and statutory interpretation. Even when he relies on arguments relating to fostering the public good, the arguments have some plausibility. He admits that his views differ from some colleagues on the Supreme Court. It is when he offers special pleading on the preferred status of the Supreme Court, and ignores all the issues regarding the breakdown of checks and balances, that his arguments seem self-serving. I suppose he's just human, which is why "Who will guard the guardians?" is as true of the Supreme Court as anyone else.
What are the consequences of the exalted status of the American Supreme Court for American democracy? A democratic government reflects direct input from the people, unlike Justice Breyer's definition which is any government that arises from an election and afterward is almost independent of the people. Let's look at examples: In the presidential election of 1876 the disputed returns in a number of Southern states led to a dramatic impasse. Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices serving on a 15 member Electoral Commission together with five members from each house of Congress. The result, with voting on partisan lines, was to give the election to Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate. Fast forward to the disputed presidential election of 2000, and disputed returns in Florida were resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court to favor the Republican candidate, George W. Bush. This was after the Florida Supreme Court resolved the election in a way to favor the Democratic candidate, Al Gore. The election had to be resolved by courts because there was no method in place to determine what to do, other than the courts. Alas, no one but the courts were ready and interested in intervening.
Courts have the responsibility for enforcing the nation's values, not the values of the members of the courts. As a practical matter, however, how can this be enforced? In many ways it can't, not without a public outcry over abuses, or a public monitoring of the courts. Another result is that the abortion issue was not resolved by Rowe vs. Wade since it did not settle public discussion. Instead of discussing the effects of abortion on society, the legalistic arguments of both sides, the right to privacy versus "respect" for life convinced no opponent because both arguments were filled with "rights talk" that avoided dealing with practical consequences. Breyer would like public discussions of practical matters, but this ends up being done by judges and not by the public, and judges are not more practical than the public at large, though they certainly are richer and more secure.
The dynamic basis of democracy is creating and enforcing laws that reflect the concrete circumstances of the public affected by laws, not the vague clichés of armchair moralists and/or opportunists. Yet, just as "Who will guard the guardians?" is a problem for monarchies, so too is it for judiciaries as well. One consequence of trying an ‘end run' around Congress by creating ad-hoc "rights" is to guarantee that right-wing activists will push their own version of "rights." In many ways it is harder than ever to rein in giant corporations because of all the "rights" the courts have given them. At a certain point "rights talk" interferes with democracy when the rights are not the creation of the democratic process, but merely the creation of courts and are indistinguishable from mere wants, which always must be judged against a context of reasonableness.
There has been a severe deterioration both of community and of conceptions of the common good. One reason there is a tendency for government to misuse eminent domain is that the concept of public purpose has become muddled. While this mechanism was once used for taking private land for building roads, bridges, and so on, there is a tendency today to favor anything that produces economic growth, even if it only benefits the already rich. So private land is given to real estate developers, as if all economic growth is a public good, which is an absurdity. Meanwhile, many non-business activists act as if they are only victims, demanding equality of result rather than equality of opportunity. While government, and the courts, get whip-sawed between these two ideologies, the common good is ignored. The courts are part of this vicious cycle of ignorance. The danger is that they step in to create social order because no one else is protecting the public good. ‘Better than nothing' is the excuse for judicial activism. Better than do-nothing legislatures and do-nothing executives, claim the judges. Well, that isn't good enough, when we can have real yet unrealized democracy as an alternative.
"In all cases, our analysis of the applicability of the protections of the Constitution must be made in light of existing circumstances as well as our historic traditions,"(1) Judge Reinhardt, Ninth Circuit
The Supreme Court has held that a modern procedure must satisfy the substance of the English common law jury trial in 1791 to be constitutional under the Seventh Amendment.
Summary judgment is a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. There is also the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States . But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court.
Petitioners declare that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. No procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and summary judgment violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. Summary judgment is unconstitutional.
Writ of certiorari,
You should reconsider the opinion that argument is unnecessary.
You should reconsider that Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. has quit claimed Iron Mountain mine real property to T.W. Arman, Mr.T.W. Arman is the sole absolute sovereign supreme original patent title owner.
You should reconsider that plaintiffs have in their pleadings substantively forgiven the tortfeasors for their errors of recognizable religious (holistic) dogmatic ideology and irrational fear based waste.
“One Co-tenant may recover the whole estate in ejectment against strangers.”
King Solomon Co. v. Mary Verna Co. 22 Cal . App. 528, 127 P 129, 130
“The owner is not liable for pollution of stream incidental to placer mining, or to washing iron ore. It is classed among non-actionable injuries. Nor will such use of the stream be enjoined even if an action lies, except in willful or extreme cases. Clifton Co. v. Pye 87 Ala. 468 6So 192. Hill v. King 4 M.R. 533. 8 Cal. 337, Atchison v. Peterson 1 M.R. 583 20 Wall 501.
California Statute Sec. 1426 7/1/09
In the absence of clearly expressed legislative intent, retrospective operation will not be given to statutes, nor, in absence of such intent, will a statute be construed as impairing rights relied upon in past conduct when other legislation was in force. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards, ante, p. 231 U. S. 190 .
The objective of the public trust is always evolving so that a trustee is not burdened with outmoded classifications favoring the original and traditional triad of commerce, navigation and fisheries over those uses encompassing changing public needs. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 434.
Section 5937 "is a legislative expression of the public trust doctrine." California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board, 255 Cal. Rptr. 184,209,212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989». The public trust doctrine and section 5937 overlap, addressing the fisheries at different levels of generality. The public trust doctrine has long protected fisheries used by commercial and recreational fishers, and more recent case law has expanded the doctrine to include the general public's right to preserve fisheries and their related habitat for their intrinsic environmental value as ecological units. Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 259,491 P.2d 374, 380 (1971 ) (establishing that the doctrine changes in tandem with changing public values and scientific understanding) and National Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Court of Alpine Cty, 33 Cal.3d 419,435,658 P.2d 709 ( Cal. 1983), cert denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983).
(administrative agencies are not required to, nor should they, regulate the present and future within the inflexible limits of yesterday); Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176 (6th Cir.1986) (Environmental Protection Agency could apply its definition of "reasonably available control technology" to disapprove proposed state dust rules where it had approved similar rules of other states, in light of new knowledge); cf. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 566 n. 20,99 S.Ct. 790, 58 L.Ed.2d 808 (1979) (deference due administrative agencies is due in part because of willingness to accord some measure of flexibility to an agency as it encounters new and unforeseen problems over time).
Citing California Trout, Inc. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.3d 187,266 Cal.Rptr. 788, 801 (1990) (ordering the water board to establish flow rates based on available data while proceeding with more elaborate studies), the Supreme Court of Hawaii directed the state water agency to use "the best information presently available" in protecting public trust values. In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97, 9 P.3d 409 ( Hawai'i , 2000). The Court emphasized the importance of comprehensive and pro-active planning in a region where growth and its attendant demands on groundwater outstrip the region's limited supply. The Court eloquently summed up the role of a water agency: "The constitutional framers and the legislature designed the Commission as an instrument for judicious planning and regulation, rather than crisis management. ... [The public trust] concept implies not only the power to protect the resources but the responsibility to do so long before any crisis develops [citing Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 77 in 1 Proceedings, at 688] . . .. [T]he water code should serve as a tool and an incentive for planning the wise use of Hawaii 's water resources, rather than as a water crisis and shortage management mechanism [citing Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 348, in 1987 House Journal, at 126263]."
It is not possible to consider the relevant wildlife statutes without considering the framework of the public trust doctrine. The non-codified public trust doctrine remains important both to confirm the state's sovereign supervision and to require consideration of public trust uses in cases filed directly in the courts. National Audubon, 33 Cal. 3d 419 at n. 27. See also, Kootenai Envtl. Alliance v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 105 Idaho 622, 671 P.2d 1085, 1095 ( Idaho 1983) (Mere compliance with legislation is not sufficient). The government cannot act outside of the boundaries of the public trust doctrine with respect to public trust resources. San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court ex reI. Maricopa County , 193 Ariz. 195,972 P.2d 179, 199 (1999) ("The public trust doctrine is a constitutional limitation on legislative power ....").
2715. No provision of this chapter or any ruling, requirement, or policy of the board is a limitation on any of the following:
(a) On the police power of any city or county or on the power of any city or county to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances.
(b) On the power of the Attorney General, at the request of the board, or upon his own motion, to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enjoin any pollution or nuisance.
Petitioners have shown good cause to be excused for any inadvertence which might otherwise call for a dismissal and to reconsider more than the unadorned complaints
Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each claim and objection.
Damages accrued since 1978, when the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) commenced enforcement of the Clean Water Act as amended in Dec. 1977 of federal discharge limits for copper, cadmium, and zinc as “hazardous wastes” with issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to mining companies. (Ex Post Facto law 1).
The federal state government agencies plot to abrogate patent title mine lands of the United States.
Petitioners seek joinder for vindication of innocent landowner's act of God and third party defenses.
Petitioners seek joinder as defendants pursuant to §6973 imminent hazard, authority of administrator citizen suit emergency intervention arbitrary and capricious reckless negligent endangerment.
Petitioner seeks joinder as defendants to each Court contributing to or evading judgment in this matter.
Corrections: No trial was held to hear the defense of Mr. Arman or IMMI as the innocent landowner or passive site operator, notwithstanding that the previous owners (Rhone Polenc, Stauffer Chemical, Mountain Copper Co. et al) were found joint and severally liable, and were found to be the RP (responsible party) for the “disposal” of hazardous wastes, were found to have a contractual obligation to assume 100% of the mining liability, and who settled without admission of the United States Claims.
380. In an action brought by a person out of possession of real property, to determine an adverse claim of an interest or estate therein, the person making such adverse claim and persons in possession may be joined as defendants; and if the judgment be for the plaintiff, he may have a writ for the possession of the premises, as against the defendants in the action, against whom the judgment has passed..
Joint and Several Trespassers ejectment; CORAM VOBIS incidental and peremptory mandamus
Including an accounting of the damages. Leave for QUO WARRANTO administrative mandamus.
Where an agent commits an active trespass on behalf of his principal, such principal is a “joint trespassers” with the agent. Williams v. Inman, 57 S.E. 1000, 1010, 1 Ga.App. 321.
“Persons engaged in committing the same trespass are “joint and several trespassers,” and not “joint trespassers,” exclusively. Like persons liable on a joint and several contract, they may all be sued in one action, or one may be sued alone, and cannot plead the nonjoinder of the others in abatement; and so far is the doctrine of several liability carried that the defendants, where more than one are sued in the same action, may sever in their pleas, and the jury may find several verdicts, and on several verdicts of guilty may assess different sums as damages.” The executive officer of a corporation, who is the stockholder, and full management of its affairs, who's rights were violated by defendants who instigated and controlled the joint and several trespassers in willfully infringed complainants mine, and for bringing disrepute to the corporation, and violating environmental law to spoil said property, diminish its value, and claim a lien upon said property for recompensation for unnecessary arbitrary and capricious actions under color of law .
Because of the corporeal and perpetual injuries, including the damages found due complainant, on an accounting, a suit will lie against them to recover the property and the amount of such decree from them individually, when, through their control and influence, they caused the corporation to be unable to transfer its property and to declare and pay dividends pending the suit against it, by which it was rendered substantially yet falsely insolvent. See Saxlehner v. Elsner, 140 Fed. 938, 941 adopting the definition I Lovejoy v. Murray , 3 Wall. 1, 18 L. Ed. 129.
writ of unspeakable errors, divide et regnes! RELIEF: UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN VIOLATIONS OF FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, TENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS.
§ 3729. FALSE CLAIMS; MISTAKE! PROHIBITION! EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL!
“It has been justly thought a matter of importance to determine from what source the United States derives its authority... The question here proposed is whether our bond of union is a compact entered into by the states, or whether the Constitution is an organic law established by the People. To this we answer: ‘We the People... ordain and establish this Constitution'...
WE NEED TO KNOW THE LINE ON WHICH TO DRAW THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWERS;
WE WILL SO DETERMINE HERE!
Therefore, to “establish certain limits not to be transcended by the government.”
Given Iron Mountain Mines unique 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, but to Mr. Ted Arman's consistent judgment to deny the [EPA] this power.…
“Full relief and restore possession to the party entitled thereto; Mr. Ted Arrman's Iron Mountain Mine. 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.”
Environmentalism has become America's new religion …time to consider separation of church and state
by Hugh Holub on Oct. 05, 2010
The environmental movement in the United States has morphed from a science-based debate about the real impacts of air and water and soil pollution into something radically different.
Environmentalism has becomes America's new religion.
Originally environmental issues were framed around solid evidence of negative impacts of certain human activities like toxic discharges into the air and water that harmed people.
There were clear science-based cause and effects addressed.
But now environmentalism has taken on a very different tone.
There is a theological bent to the environmental debate casting God (the planet Earth or Gaia) against Satan (human beings).
Humans are seens as a scourge on the planet and everything we do is counter to the planet.
Michael Crichton described this best in his 2003 speech about environmentalism becoming a religion:
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.
“Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
“There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.”
The first thing that went out the door with the new environmental religion was science.
No longer are we debating what has happened..the debate is about what could happen. No science…just belief.
Read Jonathan DuHamels' post about a recent conference about the Saguaro National Monument .
One does not have to prove a cause and effect relationship between human activity and damage to the environment. The arguments are all about belief that humans are the source of harm oir change in the enviroment.
The environment changes constantly due to natural cycles and causes. But in the religious environmental world all change is negative and presumptively human-caused.
Another aspect of the religious dimension of environmentalism is that there are no rules in the battle to protect the environment against the evil humans.
Radical environmentalists have become jihadists, setting fire to laboratories, making false claims about the human-environment interface, and organizing large groups that look a lot like churches to fund their crusades.
The end justiifies the means to the religious environmentalists.
Consider the “ Climategate ” incident…scientists actively surpression data that disagreed with their claim humans are causing global warming.
Jonathan DuHamel published a very interesting article on changes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere .
This sets up a very important question for the relationship between US constitutional law and the environmental movement.
If environmentalism is being practiced as a religion, it has no place being enshrined in our laws. The separation of church and state must be applied to the environmental movement and their agenda.
We cannot allow religious environmentalists to use our legal system to impose their religious dogma on our country. And a lot of environmental goals are nothing more than religious beliefs aimed at punishing the wicked humans and forcing society to adhere to environmental religious beliefs.
We need to base law and policy on science…not on belief and especially not on the premise that one or another human activity is evil.
A good example of environmentalism as a religion being practiced in a legal context is the Endangered Species Act.
It is presumed by the environmental religionists that humans are the sole cause of extinction and that this law can be used to force humans to comply with new rules to protect God's children…the plants and animals of Earth.
No longer are radical environmentalists focused on real extinction of an entire species…as with the recent argument over Arizona's bald eagles …the argument is extinction of a specific population in a specific location. That the eagles of Montana are the same species as the eagles in Arizona doesn't matter. Arizona's population is threatened according to the radical environmentalists.
The real goal of the Arizona eagle argument was to attack human land uses viewed as threatening the Arizona eagles. The Endangered Species Act is just a weapon to use against those who violate the religious goals of the priests of the environmental movement.
One should note that under the Endangered Species Act, a habitat protection plan can be imposed where an allegedly endangered species could live. It doesn't matter if a particular plant or animal never actually lived in a particular place… that they could have lived there is enough to invoke federal power to order change to human activity.
What is needed is a full-on challenge to any effort by radical environmentalists to impose their religious beliefs on society via our legal system.
Federal agencies and the courts must now look at allegations by environmental groups to see if there really is a scientific basis for the claims made by environmentalsist…or are the arguments just religious dogma.
Here are some interesting articles about Environmentalism as a Religion:
Environmentalism as Religion
While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.By Paul H. Rubin
Wall Street Journal April 22 2010
….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….And…..
The truth about the destructive religion of Environmentalism
….The bottom line: The most consistent, dedicated environmentalists want you, and everyone else, to die. It's as simple as that.
Any other supposed goals are a means to that ultimate end; the destruction of industrial civilization around the world means the death of the vast majority of current humanity. They know this – you should too. Every single smaller goal of environmentalism is consistent with that ultimate goal; do not be deluded into thinking that environmentalism is about improving your life or any human life.
Environmentalism is not about a desire to have cleaner water and air. It is now a full-fledged religion, and its main tenet is “raw nature” as god-like, and Mankind as a plague infecting it. If you support environmentalism, the fact is that you're supporting an ideology that promotes the destruction of Mankind – and concretely, that includes yourself and everyone you care about.
And Michael Crichton's famous speech in 2003 about environmentalism morphing into a religion…
REMARKS TO THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB
by Michael Crichton – San Francisco – September 15, 2003I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.
As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?
And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.
There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.
More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.
And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you'll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you'll have infections and sickness and if you're not with somebody who knows what they're doing, you'll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won't experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.
The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't. It's all fantasy.
One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can't conceive the real power of what we blithely call “the force of nature.” They have seen the ocean. But they haven't been in it.
The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.
But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't deep—maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.
But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?
Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there—though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.
Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.
With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.
So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeousscience journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.
Most of us have had some experience interacting withreligious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.
I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.
There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.
First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth—that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.
The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.
How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these “facts” are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all—what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.
This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.
"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416
"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291
"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546
The Private Nature of Religion
"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60
"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
Government Intermeddling in Religion
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378
"Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New London Methodists, 1809. ME 16:332
"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429
"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546
"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
Religion Intermeddling in Government
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434
Establishments of Religion Undermine Rights
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1810. ME 12:345
"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801. (*)
"This doctrine ['that the condition of man cannot be ameliorated, that what has been must ever be, and that to secure ourselves where we are we must tread with awful reverence in the footsteps of our fathers'] is the genuine fruit of the alliance between Church and State, the tenants of which finding themselves but too well in their present condition, oppose all advances which might unmask their usurpations and monopolies of honors, wealth and power, and fear every change as endangering the comforts they now hold." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.
"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305
"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America , a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119
"I have been just reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its fundamental bases is expressed in these words: 'The Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, and always shall be, that of the Spanish nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever.' Now I wish this presented to those who question what [a bookseller] may sell or we may buy, with a request to strike out the words, 'Roman Catholic,' and to insert the denomination of their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each wishes should domineer over the opinions of all others, and be taken, like the Spanish religion, under the 'protection of wise and just laws.' It would show to what they wish to reduce the liberty for which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness. It would present our boasted freedom of religion as a thing of theory only, and not of practice, as what would be a poor exchange for the theoretic thraldom, but practical freedom of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:128
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
The Benefits of Religious Freedom
"The law for religious freedom... [has] put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:400
"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
"We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:546
"A recollection of our former vassalage in religion and civil government will unite the zeal of every heart, and the energy of every hand, to preserve that independence in both which, under the favor of Heaven, a disinterested devotion to the public cause first achieved, and a disinterested sacrifice of private interests will now maintain." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:318
Religious Illegality
"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
"If a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play and reasons and laughs it out of doors without suffering the State to be troubled with it." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548
"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
The First Amendment
In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution :
“ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ” The " Establishment Clause ," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation , this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.
The " Free Exercise Clause " states that Congress can not "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 1800s, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy , yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that " Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. " For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism , the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis [ 6 ] [ not in citation given ] or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote . Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.
The Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the religious civil rights. [ 7 ] Whereas the First Amendment secures the free exercise of religion, section one of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination, including on the basis of religion, by securing "the equal protection of the laws" for every person:
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” Religious tests
The affirmation or denial of specific religious beliefs had, in the past, been made into qualifications for public office; however, the United States Constitution states that the inauguration of a President may include an "affirmation" of the faithful execution of his duties rather than an "oath" to that effect — this provision was included in order to respect the religious prerogatives of the Quakers , a Protestant Christian denomination that declines the swearing of oaths . The U.S. Constitution also provides that "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification of any Office or public Trust under the United States." As of 2007, seven states have language included in their constitutions that requires state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas , Massachusetts , Maryland , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Tennessee . [ 8 ] Some of these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. Even though they are still on the books, these provisions have been rendered unenforceable by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. [ 9 ]
Religious liberty has not prohibited states or the federal government from prohibiting or regulating certain behaviors; i.e. prostitution , gambling , alcohol and certain drugs , although some libertarians interpret religious freedom to extend to these behaviors. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a right to privacy or a due process right does prevent the government from prohibiting adult access to birth control , pornography , and from outlawing sodomy between consenting adults and early trimester abortions .
The "wall of separation"
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a " wall of separation between church and state" likely borrowing the language from Roger Williams , founder of the First Baptist Church in America and the Colony of Rhode Island, who used the phrase in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution . [ 10 ] James Madison , often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights", [ 11 ] also often wrote of the "perfect separation", [ 12 ] "line of separation", [ 13 ] "strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States", [ 14 ] and "total separation of the church from the state". [ 15 ] Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. However, in order for the courts to recognize "separation of church and state" a 2/3 majority vote is required for a constitutional amendment in accordance to the Bill of Rights. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution . Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" of men in the Declaration of Independence ). Some more socially conservative Christian sects, such as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, oppose the concept of a "wall of separation" and prefer a closer relationship between church and state.
Problems also arise in U.S. public schools concerning the teaching and display of religious issues. In various counties, school choice and school vouchers have been put forward as solutions to accommodate variety in beliefs and freedom of religion, by allowing individual school boards to choose between a secular, religious or multi-faith vocation, and allowing parents free choice among these schools. Critics of American voucher programs claim that they take funds away from public schools, and that the amount of funds given by vouchers is not enough to help many middle and working class parents.
U.S. judges often ordered alcoholic defendants to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or face imprisonment. However, in 1999, a federal appeals court ruled this unconstitutional because the A.A. program relies on submission to a "Higher Power".
Thomas Jefferson also played a large role in the formation of freedom of religion. He created the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom , which has since been incorporated into the Virginia State Constitution.
Unalienable rights
The United States of America was established on foundational principles by the Declaration of Independence : [ 16 ]
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; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
(based on Thomas Jefferson's draft.)
Religious institutions
In 1944, a joint committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, formulated a “Statement on Religious Liberty”
“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organise with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.”Freedom of religion restoration
Following increasing government involvement in religious matters, Congress passed the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act . [ 17 ] A number of states then passed corresponding acts (e.g., Missouri passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act). [ 18 ]
Supreme Court rulings
Jehovah's Witnesses
Main article: United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's WitnessesSince the 1940s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have often invoked the First Amendment's freedom of religion clauses to protect their ability to engage in the proselytizing that is central to their faith. This series of litigation has helped to define civil liberties case law in the United States and Canada .
In the United States of America and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion , press and speech . In the United States , many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. Of the 72 cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses that have been brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court has ruled in favor of them 47 times. Even the cases that the Jehovah's Witnesses lost helped the U.S. to more clearly define the limits of First Amendment rights. Former Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone jokingly suggested "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." "Like it or not," observed American author and editor Irving Dilliard, "Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group."
Professor C. S. Braden wrote: "They have performed a signal service to democracy by their fight to preserve their civil rights, for in their struggle they have done much to secure those rights for every minority group in America." [ 19 ]
"The cases that the Witnesses were involved in formed the bedrock of 1st Amendment protections for all citizens," said Paul Polidoro, a lawyer who argued the Watchtower Society's case before the Supreme Court in February 2002. "These cases were a good vehicle for the courts to address the protections that were to be accorded free speech, the free press and free exercise of religion. In addition, the cases marked the emergence of individual rights as an issue within the U.S. court system.
Before the Jehovah's Witnesses brought several dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1930s and 1940s, the Court had handled few cases contesting laws that restricted freedom of speech and freedom of religion . Until then, the First Amendment had only been applied to Congress and the federal government.
However, the cases brought before the Court by the Jehovah's Witnesses allowed the Court to consider a range of issues: mandatory flag salute, sedition, free speech, literature distribution and military draft law. These cases proved to be pivotal moments in the formation of constitutional law . Jehovah's Witnesses' court victories have strengthened rights including the protection of religious conduct from federal and state interference, the right to abstain from patriotic rituals and military service and the right to engage in public discourse.
During the World War II era, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses in several landmark cases that helped pave the way for the modern civil rights movement. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.
Significant cases have affirmed rights such as these:
- Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute
- Conscientious objection to military service
- Preaching in public (proselytizing)
Lemon test
The Supreme Court has consistently held fast to the rule of strict separation of church and state when matters of prayer are involved. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Court ruled that government-imposed nondenominational prayer in public school was unconstitutional. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Court ruled prayer established by a school principal at a middle school graduation was also unconstitutional, and in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) it ruled that school officials may not directly impose student-led prayer during high school football games nor establish an official student election process for the purpose of indirectly establishing such prayer. The distinction between force of government and individual liberty is the cornerstone of such cases. Each case restricts acts by government designed to establish prayer while explicitly or implicitly affirming students' individual freedom to pray.
The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:
- Had a secular purpose
- Neither advanced nor inhibited religion
- Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
However, since the 1980s, the Supreme Court has seemed to sidestep the Lemon test altogether.
- In 1981, the Court ruled that a Missouri law prohibiting religious groups from using state university grounds and buildings for religious worship was unconstitutional. [ citation needed ] As a result, Congress decided in 1984 that this should apply to secondary and primary schools as well, passing the Equal Access Act , which prevents public schools from discriminating against students based on "religious, political, philosophical or other content of the speech at such meetings". In 1990, the Court upheld this law when it ruled that a school board's refusal to allow a Christian Bible club to meet in a public high school classroom violated the act. [ citation needed ]
- In 1993, the Court ruled that religious groups must be allowed to use public schools after hours if the same access is granted to other community groups. [ citation needed ]
- In 1995, the Supreme Court found that the University of Virginia was unconstitutionally withholding funds from a religious student magazine. [ citation needed ]
State constitutions
Under the doctrine of Incorporation , the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. Therefore the states must guarantee the freedom of religion in the same way the federal government must.
Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret "freedom of religion" as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, democracies interpret "freedom of religion" as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether.
In office and at work
Requirements for holding a public office
Main article: Oath of Office#United StatesThe no religious test clause of the U.S. constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Although it has become tradition for US presidents to end their Presidential Oath with "so help me God", this is not required by the Constitution . However, the Vice President , the House of Representatives , the Senate , the members of the Cabinet , and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President are required to take an oath ending with " so help me God ." [ 20 ]
See also: Oath of office of the President of the United States , United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office , and Oath of enlistmentSome state constitutions in the US require belief in God or a Supreme Being as a prerequisite for holding public office or being a witness in court. This applies to Arkansas , [ 21 ] Maryland , [ 22 ] Mississippi , [ 23 ] North Carolina , [ 24 ] where the requirement was challenged and overturned in Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979), [ citation needed ] South Carolina , [ 25 ] Tennessee [ 26 ] Texas [ 27 ] and Pennsylvania , [ 28 ] debatably. [ 29 ] A unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override these state requirements, [ 30 ] so they are not enforced.
Issues at the workplace
Problems sometimes arise in the workplace concerning religious observance when a private employer discharges an employee for failure to report to work on what the employee considers a holy day or a day of rest. In the United States, the view that has generally prevailed is that firing for any cause in general renders a former employee ineligible for unemployment compensation, but that this is no longer the case if the 'cause' is religious in nature, especially an employee's unwillingness to work during Jewish Shabbat , Christian Sabbath , or Muslim jumu'ah .
While the ceremonial use of peyote is largely allowed since the Freedom or Religion restoration act (see below), its psychotropic ingredient mescaline is still a controlled substance, and in Employment Division v. Smith the Supreme court decided that employees (in this case from a drug rehabilitation clinic) may be fired for its use.
After reports in August 2010 [update] that soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band's concert at a Virginia military base were essentially punished by being banished to their barracks and told to clean them up, an Army spokesman said that an investigation was underway and "If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy,". [ 31 ] [ 32 ]
Situation of minority groups
Situation of Catholics
Main article: Anti-Catholicism in the United StatesJohn Highham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history". [ 33 ] Anti-Catholicism which was prominent in the United Kingdom was exported to the United States . Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society. The first, derived from the heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century , consisted of the "Anti-Christ" and the "Whore of Babylon" variety and dominated Anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second was a more secular variety which focused on the supposed intrigue of the Catholics intent on extending medieval despotism worldwide. [ 34 ]
Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people." [ 35 ]
Because many of the British colonists, such as the Puritans and Congregationalists , were fleeing religious persecution by the Church of England, much of early American religious culture exhibited the more extreme anti-Catholic bias of these Protestant denominations. Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia ." [ 36 ] Colonial charters and laws contained specific proscriptions against Roman Catholics. Monsignor Ellis noted that a common hatred of the Roman Catholic Church could unite Anglican clerics and Puritan ministers despite their differences and conflicts.
Some of America's Founding Fathers held anti-clerical beliefs. For example, in 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil.". [ 37 ] Thomas Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," [ 38 ] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot , abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." [ 39 ]
Some states devised loyalty oaths designed to exclude Catholics from state and local office. [ 40 ]
Anti-Catholic animus in the United States reached a peak in the nineteenth century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the influx of Catholic immigrants. Some American Protestants, having an increased interest in prophecies regarding the end of time, claimed that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. [ 41 ] The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics. [ 42 ] This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States. The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856.
The founder of the Know-Nothing movement, Lewis C. Levin , based his political career entirely on anti-Catholicism, and served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives (1845–1851), after which he campaigned for Fillmore and other "nativist" candidates.
After 1875 many states passed constitutional provisions, called " Blaine Amendments , forbidding tax money be used to fund parochial schools. [ 43 ] [ 44 ] In 2002, the United States Supreme Court partially vitiated these amendments, when they ruled that vouchers were constitutional if tax dollars followed a child to a school, even if it were religious. [ 45 ]
Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion. [ 46 ]
The 1928 presidential campaign of Al Smith was a rallying point for the Klan and the tide of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. The Catholic Church of the Little Flower was first built in 1925 in Royal Oak, Michigan , a largely Protestant area. Two weeks after it opened, the Ku Klux Klan burned a cross in front of the church. [ 47 ] The church burned down in a fire in 1936. [ 48 ] In response, the church built a fireproof crucifixion tower, as a "cross they could not burn". [ 49 ]
In 1922 , the voters of Oregon passed an initiative amending Oregon Law Section 5259, the Compulsory Education Act. The law unofficially became known as the Oregon School Law. The citizens' initiative was primarily aimed at eliminating parochial schools , including Catholic schools. [ 50 ] The law caused outraged Catholics to organize locally and nationally for the right to send their children to Catholic schools. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the United States Supreme Court declared the Oregon's Compulsory Education Act unconstitutional in a ruling that that has been called "the Magna Carta of the parochial school system."
In 1928, Al Smith became the first Roman Catholic to gain a major party's nomination for President, and his religion became an issue during the campaign . Many Protestants feared that Smith would take orders from church leaders in Rome in making decisions affecting the country.
A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his 1960 campaign for the presidency of the United States was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion; some Protestants , including Norman Vincent Peale , believed that, if he were elected President, Kennedy would have to take orders from the Pope in Rome. [ 51 ] To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, John F. Kennedy famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." [ 52 ] He promised to respect the separation of church and state and not to allow Catholic officials to dictate public policy to him. Kennedy also raised the question of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Catholic.
Kennedy went on to win the national popular vote over Richard Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%) - the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the electoral college , Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win). The New York Times , summarizing the discussion late in November, spoke of a “narrow consensus” among the experts that Kennedy had won more than he lost as a result of his Catholicism, [ 53 ] as Catholics flocked to Kennedy to demonstrate their group solidarity in demanding political equality.
Situation of Mormons 1820-1890
Main articles: Anti-Mormonism and Violence against MormonsHistorically, the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism have been the victim of religious violence beginning with reports by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately after his First Vision 1820 [ 54 ] and continuing as the movement grew and migrated from its inception in western New York to Ohio , Missouri , and Illinois . The violence culminated with the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. , who was killed by a mob of 200 men in Carthage Jail in 1844. Joseph Smith had surrendered himself previously to the authorities, who failed to protect him. As a result of the violence they were faced with in the East , the Mormon pioneers migrated westwards and eventually founded Salt Lake City , and many other communities along the Mormon Corridor .
With the concept of plural marriage , from 1830 till 1890 the Mormon faith allowed its member to practice polygamy ; after 1843 this was limited to polygyny (one man could have several women). The notion of polygamy was not only generally disdained by most of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, [ 55 ] it is also contrary to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage . After 1844 the United States government passed legislation aimed specifically at the Mormon practice of polygamy until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially renounced it. In the case of Reynolds v. United States , the U.S. supreme court concluded that "religious duty" was not a suitable defense to an indictment for polygamy; therefore, a law against polygamy is not legally considered to discriminate against a religion that endorses polygamy. When their appeals to the courts and lawmakers were exhausted and once church leaders were satisfied that God had accepted what they saw as their sacrifice for the principle, the prophet leader of the church received inspiration that the Lord had accepted their obedience and rescinded the commandment for plural marriage. In 1890, an official declaration was issued by the church prohibiting further plural marriages. [ 56 ] Utah was admitted to the Union on January 4, 1896.
Smith and his followers experienced relatively low levels of persecution in New York and Ohio, [ 57 ] [ clarification needed ] although one incident involved church members being tarred and feathered . [ 58 ] They would eventually move on to Missouri, where some of the worst atrocities against Mormons would take place. Smith declared the area around Independence, Missouri to be the site of Zion , inspiring a massive influx of Mormon converts. Locals, alarmed by rumors of the strange, new religion (including rumors of polygamy), [ citation needed ] attempted to drive the Mormons out. This resulted in the Mormon War , the Haun's Mill massacre , and the issue of the Missouri Executive Order 44 by Governor Lilburn Boggs , which ordered " ... Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state ... ". [ 59 ] The majority of Mormons would flee to Illinois, where they were received warmly by the village of Commerce, Illinois. The Mormons quickly expanded the town and renamed it Nauvoo , which was one of the largest cities in Illinois at the time. [ 60 ] The economic, political, and religious dominance of the Mormons (Smith was mayor and captain of the local militia) inspired mobs to attack the city, and Smith was arrested for destroying the press of an anti-Mormon newspaper, although he acted with the consent of the city council. [ 61 ] He was imprisoned, along with his brother Hyrum Smith , at Carthage Jail . They were attacked by a mob of about 200 men and killed.
After a succession crisis , most of the Mormons united under Brigham Young , who organized an evacuation from Nauvoo and from the United States itself after the federal government refused to protect the Mormons. [ 62 ] Young and an eventual 50,000-70,000 would cross the Great Plains to settle in the Salt Lake Valley and the surrounding area. After the events of the Mexican-American War , the area became a United States territory. Young immediately petitioned for the addition of the State of Deseret , but the federal government declined. Instead, Congress carved out the much smaller territory of Utah . Over the next 46 years, several actions of the federal government were directed at Mormons, specifically to curtail the practice of polygamy and to reduce their political and economic power. These included the Utah War , Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act , Poland Act , Edmunds Act , and Edmunds-Tucker Act . In 1890, Church President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto , ending polygamy.
Situation of Native Americans
The situation of Native Americans in the United States has been problematic since the initial European colonization of the Americas . Aside from the general issues in the relations between Europeans and Native Americans, there has been a historic suppression of Native American religions as well as some current charges of religious discrimination against Native Americans by the U.S. government, that need to be considered.
With the practice of the Americanization of Native Americans , Native American children were sent to Christian boarding schools where they were forced to worship as Christians and traditional customs were banned. [ 63 ] Until the Freedom of Religion Act 1978, "spiritual leaders [of Native Americans] ran the risk of jail sentences of up to 30 years for simply practicing their rituals." [ 64 ] The traditional indigenous Sun Dance was illegal from the 1880s (Canada) or 1904 (USA) to the 1980s.
Continuing charges of religious discrimination have largely centered on the eagle feather law , the use of ceremonial peyote , and the repatriation of Native American human remains and cultural and religious objects:
- The eagle feather law , which governs the possession and religious use of eagle feathers, was written with the intention to protect then dwindling eagle populations on one hand while still protecting traditional Native American spiritual and religious customs, to which the use of eagle feather is central, on the other hand. As a result, the possession of eagle feathers is restricted to ethnic Native Americans, a policy that is seen as controversial for several reasons.
- Peyote , a spineless cactus found in the desert southwest and Mexico , is commonly used in certain traditions of Native American religion and spirituality, most notably in the Native American Church . Prior to the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) in 1978, and as amended in 1994, the religious use of peyote was not afforded legal protection. This resulted in the arrest of many Native Americans and non-Native Americans participating in traditional indigenous religion and spirituality.
- Native Americans often hold strong personal and spiritual connections to their ancestors and often believe that their remains should rest undisturbed. This has often placed Native Americans at odds with archaeologists who have often dug on Native American burial grounds and other sites considered sacred, often removing artifacts and human remains – an act considered sacrilegious by many Native Americans. For years, Native American communities decried the removal of ancestral human remains and cultural and religious objects, charging that such activities are acts of genocide , religious persecution, and discrimination . Many Native Americans called on the government, museums, and private collectors for the return of remains and sensitive objects for reburial. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which gained passage in 1990, established a means for Native Americans to request the return or "repatriation" of human remains and other sensitive cultural, religious, and funerary items held by federal agencies and federally assisted museums and institutions.
Situation of atheists
According to Mother Jones , 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president. [ 65 ] More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results. [ 66 ] A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%). [ 67 ] [ 68 ] Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate." [ 69 ] Nevertheless, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States.
Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of America , do not allow atheist members. [ 70 ] However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do benefit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists (along with homosexuals, and others currently barred from membership). An organization called Scouting for All , founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza , is at the forefront of the movement.
Court cases
In the 1994 case [ 71 ] Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet , Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". [ 72 ] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government . [ 73 ] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity , making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. [ citation needed ] These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.
In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow , after atheist Michael Newdow challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously. [ 74 ] On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge, showing how much they disagreed with the decision. [ 74 ] The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.
Thanksgiving for Open Government
25th November 2010, 07:41 am by bernadettehyland In: Conference Reports , Nodalities Magazine , Open Data , This Week's Semantic Web , Uncategorized , linked data
On the eve of the American Thanksgiving holiday, millions of people travel to spend time with friends and family. Before I share a meal with relatives, I contemplate the connection between the first thanksgiving and the emerging Open Government movement.
The “First Thanksgiving” celebration in the US was a feast shared by 53 starving pilgrims who survived a brutal winter in New England, and 90 Native Americans. The Native Americans knew how to manage their land and waters to provide sufficient fish, meat, vegetables and fruit.
The connection between the first American Thanksgiving and Open Government has to do with adapting to a new world by sharing information . Four hundred years ago, the Native Americans shared information on seeds, crops and planting conditions, helping the pilgrims survive. Today, sharing information via the Web is helping us to better understand climate conditions, our health care options and issues impacting our local community.
Last week I joined about 250 people at the first International Open Government Conference , hosted by the US Department of Commerce in Washington DC. Approximately half the conference delegates were from government, the balance from academia and the private sector. The speakers discussed Open Government projects underway in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. Speakers shared success stories and areas for future development. The common theme: democratizing public sector data and driving innovation . Jonas Rabinovitch from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs highlighted several eGov strategies in developing nations. Mr. Rabinovitch noted that all but three UN member nations have a basic Web presence, many offer online forms and some provide the ability to perform transactions via the Web.
Given the conference was hosted in the US Department of Commerce, data.gov featured prominently. “The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.” Seven countries have stood up Open Government sites in the last 18 months, including UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Finland. Government administrators are seeking to restore public trust and establish an environment of transparency, participation and collaboration with the public.
The US Administration launched its Open Government Initiative in April 2009. In the last two years, I've watched the US Executive Branch begin to move from a “need to know” to a “need to share” culture. This cultural transition and thus this Open Government Conference, was truly historic. The conference underscored to me that we all, regardless of our political views and affiliation, live in a highly interconnected global economy, underpinned by the World Wide Web.
Respected advisors on Open Government initiatives including Professor Jim Hendler of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Sir Tim Berners-Lee , Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, agreed that public participation and collaboration will be key to the success of Open Government initiatives. I believe that more conferences like this one and the Open Government Data Camp 2010 held in London last week, drawing delegates from a variety of disciplines, from several countries, will do a great deal to reinvigorate civic engagement and economic growth from the ground up.
Government employees are responding to mandates to publish content to Open Government websites. Data.gov was launched in April 2009 with 47 data sets. Vivek Kundra, U.S Chief Information Officer stated that data.gov has in excess of 300,000 data sets as of November 2010. A large portion of the data.gov data sets are geospatial information which is an opportunity for scientists and entrepreneurs to build tools for analysis and visualization of this valuable data. The UK Government as published over 4,600 data sets, including many from Great Britain's national mapping agency, Ordnance Survey , providing the most accurate and up-to-date geographic data for the UK.
“The stakes are high for our interlinked global economy.” Dr. Robert Schaefer, Deputy Project Scientist from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab gave a compelling presentation on the need for mechanisms to make sense of published data as Linked Open Data . Publishing the content as in RDF is not sufficient, rather, providing context on what the data implies is necessary. Better tools for analysts and scientists to extract meaning from Linked Open Data will allow critical information on climate change and space weather, for example, to be more readily understood by policy makers. Professor Schaefer stated the implications for climate change are serious, wide ranging & urgent. Current CO2 emissions are higher than the International Panel of Climate Change “worst case” scenario. Billions of people may experience serious consequences from climate change. Professor Schaefer reiterated the need to get started as soon as possible. “When the water from the sea rises, millions of people will have to move.” This international conference will hopefully stimulate cooperation between the public and private sectors. It is a critical step in making data accessible and providing decision support tools for space weather and climate change.
Mr. Kundra acknowledged we have much more to do to improve the quality of published data sets. He said, “when I'm able to perform analytics on the fly, grounded on quality data, we will have achieved success.” Delegates were encouraged by Mr. Kundra and other speakers to build out communities of interest, lead by individuals, rather than government agencies. The US Government is regularly launching challenges, see http://www.challenge.gov , with modest cash prizes targeting citizens to gain insights on how we, the people, not government, can solve problems ranging from education on childhood obesity to sustainable urban housing that respects the environment.
Beth Simone Noveck, United States Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government, leads President Obama's Open Government Initiative . Based at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy , she is an expert on technology and institutional innovation. Ms. Noveck stated that “the Open Government Initiative is not transparency for transparency's sake. It is through participation and collaboration with academia and the public sector that there is value.” Creating partnerships to use Open Government Data for important and unforeseen uses is empowering individuals with the ability to make better decisions and affect our quality of life.
We are in the very early stages of making Open Government available as Linked Data. Today, we are in the very early phases, however, there are many good reasons to support Open Government initiatives including accountability in spending, improved health care provision, and addressing climate change and space weather which affects the world's population. The international data exchange standards are in now in place. While experts will continue to refine the technical underpinnings and best practices will evolve, the citizen lead movement, assisted by government, is truly underway.
Bright young geeks are increasingly involved in American civic life through non-profit organizations like Code for America . Passionate entrepreneurs like Dan Melton show that being being super bright and engaged at a grassroots level in government is both hip and necessary. Code for America recruited twenty “fellows” from 362 applicants to get involved in city projects in 2011. One example discussed was the Boston Project whose idea is to bring info on students together & create interesting applications leveraging federal census content, student data, transit info, city and state data.
Each month new mobile applications and social networking solutions are made available. These are not expensive, government top down initiatives, rather, they are coming from the ground up by military personnel, students, local government officials, publishers, scientists and citizens who value transparent government. An interesting mobile app for Android, iPhone and the iPad was unveiled for the New York Senate . It is a real-time constituent mobile dashboard to the legislative process allowing citizens to connect with Senators, find and comment on bills, review votes and transcripts.
Academics are doing innovative research. Grad students and post-docs are rapidly prototyping what the new world of open data will look like. An increasingly number of software companies, including my employer Talis , are producing light weight platforms and cloud computing solutions. Thousands of smart people have been creating the foundation of the Linked Data “ecosystem” in the form of International Data Standards and best practices over the last fifteen years, largely through the important work of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
The availability of improved development tools is seen as a requirement for widespread proliferation of Semantically enabled applications, however, people are leveraging international standards such as RDF for Linked Data, content sharing models, well-documented licensing models, and existing best practices. Fully 25% of the applications shipped on a new Apple iPhone use government produced content.
I believe there are significant opportunities for commercial software firms to produce services and products to visualize data sets, find related data sets and most importantly, provide mechanisms as easy to use as the early Web to publish machine and human readable data as Linked Data. There is burgeoning information economy rapidly forming around provision of public and private data mixed together in novel ways. I believe that in 2011, truly useful tools for Web developers to create compelling Linked Data applications will be available for use with Open Government data.
We should all acknowledge that data will never be 100% perfect. Real data is dirty, face it. Yes, concerns will linger about misinterpretation and inappropriate mashups until people gain experience in making informed decisions based the data presented. Be patient and don't expect it to be perfect on day one or even year one. Allow best practices to emerge from the ground up, by communities of interest. Issues of data quality, provenance, context and important elements such as units of measure will all be addressed as Linked Data becomes more mainstream. Harvard Business School published a blue print for use of open government data . The W3C provides lots of useful guidance on eGovernment and Linked Data activities.
Just as the early American pilgrims experienced miscalculations in weather and agriculture, they eventually they figured out how to plant seeds correctly and increase their potential for a bountiful harvest. Through information sharing and discussion by informed citizens, the US evolved a free and democratic form of government that is admired by millions of people around the world.
I'm optimistic that the citizens of the world will leverage Open Government initiatives for positive outcomes. The more our governments support openness and transparency through Open Government initiatives, the more we, the people, can solve issues that matter at the community-level or on a global level. The stakes are high and we should be grateful and cooperate to harness the power of Open Government data and the Web. We are defining our history, as well as our future, today.
Taxpayers pay the federal government to sue itself
Published: 9:17 PM 11/23/2010 | Updated: 9:23 PM 11/23/2010
The federal government is paying environmental advocacy organizations billions of dollars — to fund lawsuits against itself. When the government has to pay or settle, the green groups dip into the public trough yet again.
Yes, you read that correctly. Tax-exempt advocacy groups are double-dipping and funneling huge fees to lawyers and lobbyists, to get federal agencies to enact policy changes which many agency staffers already favor, but which Congress has not approved. The only losers here are the nation's taxpayers.
Government agencies' “judgment funds” act as a slush fund for lawyers and special interests. These funds set money aside to fund lawyers' costs for lawsuits and the payouts from these suits, which benefit lawyers and agencies.
Taxpayers are paying both sides — and we don't even get to see the numbers. Actual award and settlement amounts are often kept confidential when the suits are filed under legislation like the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other public laws that allow the winning side to recover costs and attorney's fees. Specific amounts and payouts squirreled away in judgment funds are also kept secret. Agencies do not report any record of any dollar amounts set aside, or who are the beneficiaries of these settlement sums.
Oregon State Senator Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) reports that the eight most litigious environmental organizations have filed about 1,600 lawsuits against the federal government in the past 15 years. The Center for Biological Diversity alone has filed or appealed one or more federal lawsuits every week for the last nine years.
Neither the federal agencies nor the environmental groups track the amounts transferred as payouts. On the judgment fund's own “background” website, the US Treasury spells out the lack of accountability : “The Judgment Fund has no fiscal year limitations, and there is no need for Congress to appropriate funds to it annually or otherwise. Moreover, disbursements from it are not attributed to or accounted for by the agencies whose activities give rise to awards paid .”
Yet this should be a matter of public record, because both the costs of litigation and the payout sums are funded with taxpayer dollars.
Lawsuits and lawyers are expensive, and payouts to environmental pressure groups average about $112,000 per suit. That can add up quickly. Whitsett cites a report from Oregon's Budd-Falen Law Offices, recording more than $4.7 billion paid out from federal judgment funds over nearly 42,000 claims between January 2003 and July 2007.
Litigious environmental groups enjoy a steady stream of tax revenue thanks to this double-dipping scheme. If a green pressure group wins, it can recover attorney's fees and costs from the losing government defendant. If it settles for a sum that “substantially favors” its side, it recovers attorney's fees and costs.
It would be one thing to spend millions of dollars on litigation that provided real benefits to the public, but Judgment Fund-financed litigation does not even pretend to benefit taxpayers. In fact, other legislation forbids government defendants from recovering tax dollars wasted in these lawsuits.
When a taxpaying individual or corporation is injured by government non-enforcement of environmental laws, the individual entity has standing to file a lawsuit on its own behalf. An entity only files for recovery when an injury costs more than the anticipated cost of a suit. The cost bar prevents frivolous suits and unnecessary expense for taxpayers.
By funding both litigation and winnings with taxpayer dollars, the Judgment Fund makes lawsuits seem artificially inexpensive. In reality, charging costs to taxpayers just passes on the cost to the entire country.
The Judgment Fund — a mere line-item in the federal budget — encourages environmental activist groups to litigate much more than they would otherwise. This arrangement not only wastes taxpayer dollars, it also undermines democracy, by allowing environmental lawyer-activists and administrative agencies to enact policies while bypassing Congress. Thankfully, Congress has the authority to put a stop to this madness. It should do so.
Kathryn Ciano is the Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/taxpayers-pay-the-federal-government-to-sue-itself/#ixzz16DXwIDnWSalmon spawning; Making the Yuba a romantic rendezvous
November 24, 2010 12:24:00 AM By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat
Below Englebright Dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is trying to set the mood for threatened fish species.
Using a nearly half-mile-long pipe that draws water from the dam behind the lake and mixes it at the top of a hill with a particular gravel and cobble, Corps engineers spray the mixture onto the Yuba River bed below the dam.
By doing so over the next four to six weeks, the idea is to create a romantic reef for spring-run Chinook salmon, whose numbers have declined in recent years, to return next spring to spawn.
"This is the point where the spring run comes back," said Skip Sivertsen, senior park ranger for Englebright Dam. He referred to a 400-foot-long section below the dam where a team of three Tuesday used ropes to move the pipe's spray end to different points in the water, creating a bed of light gray gravel visible from the steep hill above.
The rock comes from a nearby quarry, which itself took those loose parts from the river. When finished, the new riverbed will be about 2 feet deep and made of 5,000 tons of round, small rock, ideal spawning ground for spring-run Chinook and also-threatened steelhead salmon.
As one group works, another team about 50 yards downstream tests the water quality, making sure it's optimal for both fish and humans.
"The overall project is a huge plus for the fishery," said J.J. Baum, a water quality specialist with the Corps' Sacramento district office. "But on a day-to-day basis, I have to deal with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Board."
Sivertsen said National Marine Fisheries Service biologists believe there are several factors behind the decline of the salmon. Issues in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and climate change have been suggested, along with the decline in spawning habitat as a result of mining practices and dams on Northern California waterways.
On a nearby part of the Yuba, state agencies and environmental groups are in the beginning stages of deciding how to create salmon habitat through different methods, such as planting more native trees and plants near the shoreline.
Gary Reedy, science program manager with one of those groups, the South Yuba River Citizens League, said efforts like the Corps' and the one his group is undertaking are acknowledgment the river isn't what it once was.
"The river's been lacking spawning gravel on its own," Reedy said. "The idea behind river rehabilitation is that the river has been impacted by a number of human impacts, and it acknowledges these impacts aren't changing."
Though the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers normally oversees levee construction and certification, it took on the riverbed project because the dam is a Corps responsibility, Sivertsen said.
Those Corps engineers and officials are already looking forward to the results of their handiwork.
"We'll have to see next spring how happy the salmon are with it," he said.
CONTACT Ben van der Meer at 749-4709 or bvandermeer@appealdemocrat.com .
AIG Downgraded to Underperform
November 24, 2010
Given the critical sustainability factor, we are downgrading our recommendation on American International Group Inc. ( AIG - Analyst Report ) to Underperform from Outperform. The company's poor third quarter performance and the likelihood of more one-time charges in 2011 further justify the demotion.
AIG's third quarter loss of $1.47 per share came in dramatically behind the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.35 and the year-ago earnings of $2.42. The lower-than-expected performance was primarily driven by $4.5 billion of restructuring charges including loss from discontinued operations and reduced investment income.
Of late, AIG has been eliminating its significant debt to the government through vigorous asset disposals. This is not only reducing the company's global market share but is also heavily weighing on the operating earnings of the company.
AIG has been incurring tremendous amounts in restructuring charges, including loss from discontinued operations, which has even absorbed the operating earnings, thereby resulting in a consolidated loss for the company. We expect the earnings to be significantly hampered by these one-time non-recurring charges in the upcoming quarters as well.
Though AIG has been able to head off a collapse by getting government bailout, it continues to face a significant threat to its business model, customer base and distribution network as a result of the volatile financial market.
The company has experienced a decline in premiums and deposits over the last several quarters, which was due principally to lower sale of investment-oriented life and retirement services products as sales efforts remained challenged due to the lingering effect of negative AIG events earlier in the year and an overall decline in industry sales of investment-oriented life and retirement services products.
Though the company continues to implement several initiatives in order to generate sufficient capital to repay the bailout money, the concerns that need attention along with the repayment are an improvement in overall managerial efficiency, reinstalling confidence among the dispirited staff. Even after implementing the recent recapitalization program, the government is expected to take about 5–8 years before it can completely sell off its stock and exit AIG's board.
Despite the expiry of the share swap agreement between the buyers of the Taiwan deal and Chinatrust on June 25, 2010, which helped in easing out the political environment in Taiwan, AIG is yet to culminate a deal for its Nan Shan unit in Taiwan. Even after making certain alterations in June 2010 to comply with China's governmental policies, the Taiwan Investment Commission rejected the sale proposal in August 2010 to the interested parties, initiating skepticism on their efficiency to manage such a high profile business.
Although management expects to vend off this asset by the end of 2011 and is reportedly negotiating with the regulatory authorities and interested buyers, the Taiwan deal remains uncertain because there is every possibility that the buyers might pull themselves out of the venture, should government intervention pose further predicaments. Hence, we remain on the periphery till further development.
However, benefits, claims and expense control and asset disposals increase operating efficiencies while the execution of the recapitalization program also appears favorable for the book value growth. AIG will be better able to access the debt markets with the execution of the recapitalization plan.
Moreover, AIG continues to stabilize its core insurance operations and proceed with its restructuring plan. The equity market appreciation has also helped the company dispose of its redundant and risky businesses at attractive valuations, which in turn helped the improvement of total equity/total capital ratio to 68.9% at the end of the third quarter from 66.4% at the end of December 2009. Besides, on Friday, Fitch affirmed its “BBB” rating on all of AIG's senior debt, reflecting a stable outlook.
Overall, AIG is working vigorously to restructure its operations in order to increase leverage and generate capital to repay the government's bailout money. However, significant amount of non-recurring restructuring charges and the delay in the Taiwan deal along with AIG's extensive exposure to risky assets have significantly mitigated AIG's positive initiatives.
Going ahead, there's an increasing possibility of profound one-time charges that would severely impact the earnings of the company through 2011. We are apprehensive that these factors could also offer rival companies such as MetLife Inc. ( MET - Analyst Report ) an undue competitive advantage.
On Monday, the shares of AIG closed at $41.95, down 0.5%, at the New York Stock Exchange.
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 believe that 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.
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.
Attention: Deficit Disorder
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Sutter Gold Mining Inc. has announced it has received regulatory approval of the revised Wetlands Delineation, a key approval required to develop and operate the Lincoln Project, located between Amador City and Sutter Creek.
As part of the company's ongoing mine permitting and permit compliance initiatives, Sutter Gold Mining Inc. recently received a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This approval pertains to the company's revised Wetlands Delineation, prepared by Berryman Ecological of Weimar. In issuing this determination, the USACE concurred with Sutter's delineation, which identified 1.02 acres of seasonal wetlands and other waters within the "area of potential effect" (approximately 95 acres) where surface disturbance associated with the Lincoln Project may occur.
The company estimates that the Lincoln Project may fill or impact only 0.75 acres of wetlands and other waters in the vicinity. This represents a significant reduction in impacts to wetlands (and other waters of the U.S.) from previous development concepts that would have impacted between 0.99 and 1.97 acres. This reduction in impacts to wetlands reflects the company's efforts to improve the project's design, reducing the environmental footprint as Sutter Gold Mining Inc. advances the design to construction and production.
Berryman Ecological also recently completed studies to assure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, concluding that the Lincoln Project, as currently planned, would not impact any federally listed species identified in the area. Similarly, Analytical Environmental Services of Sacramento completed an assessment of cultural resources in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, making a finding of "no historic properties affected" for the project.
Earlier this month, Sutter Gold Mining Inc. officials met with the USACE to review their pre-application package submitted in October 2010. Currently, the company is finalizing their permit application package to fill wetlands under the rules of the Clean Water Act. Sutter Gold Mining Inc. anticipates completing this permitting process next year in time for the 2011 construction season.
Sutter is a growth-oriented exploration and development company preparing to become a North American gold producer. The company has two projects: the Lincoln Project, and the Santa Teresa Project in the Northern Baja region of Mexico.
Currently, the company's primary focus is the evaluation and development of the Lincoln Project. Sutter currently controls approximately 3.6 miles at the site, with 90 percent of the property still unexplored.The 120-mile long Mother Lode Gold Belt produced more than 13 million ounces of gold historically with 7.9 million ounces originating from the 10-mile long segment between Jackson and Plymouth where the project is located. Properties under the company's control include a total of eight historic mines with significant historic gold production totaling more than 3.5 million ounces or 27 percent of the historic gold production from the Mother Lode. Historic mines located north and south of the Lincoln Project in the Jackson to Plymouth area of the Mother Lode successfully mined gold to depths of 4,500 and 6,300 feet, respectively.
In Mexico, Sutter holds the rights to the Santa Teresa Mineral Concession, located in the high-grade El Alamo district of northern Baja, where historic mining to the water table produced mined grades of 30 to 60 grams per ton of gold. Initial exploration with its joint-venture partner, Premier Gold, has demonstrated the extension of high-grade veins. More information on the Lincoln Project and the Sutter Gold Mining Co. can be found at www.suttergoldmining.com.Pre-Thanksgiving Superfund Rant
Posted on November 24, 2010 by Seth Jaffe
FYI: 9th Cir Reverses Remand in CAFA Removal Case, Reiterates "Preponderance of the Evidence" Standard
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , using its "preponderance of the evidence" standard, recently reversed a district court's order remanding a class action lawsuit to state court on the ground that the district court improperly found the $5 million amount in controversy requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), to have not been satisfied.
American Int'l Group (AIG)
By: Zacks Equity Research November 23, 2010
We are downgrading our recommendation on the shares of American International Group ( AIG - Analyst Report ) on a poor third quarter performance and the likelihood of more one-time charges in 2011.
Third quarter loss was dramatically behind the Zacks Consensus Estimate of earnings, primarily driven by $4.5 billion of restructuring charges including loss from discontinued operations and reduced investment income although core insurance operations generated stable results. While benefits, claims and expense control and asset disposals increase operating efficiencies, the execution of the recapitalization program also appears favorable for the book value growth.
Although AIG is poised to grow its top line on the back of the reviving economy, several nonrecurring charges are expected to mar the desired upside in the upcoming quarters.
American Int.l Group (AIG) : FULL ANALYST REPORT
Greenhill Is Hired to Adviser Treasury on A.I.G. Plan | iEconomicNews
By admin
The bank will be tasked with advising on Treasury's planned sale of its AIG stake, gained as part of a $130 billion taxpayer-financed bailout of the insurer .
iEconomicNews - http://www.ieconomicnews.com/MONDAY: Administrator Jackson to Kick Off EPA
Cases Applying the Arranger Liability Standard Announced in BNSF
The “arranger” issue that BNSF addressed arose from a fact pattern involving a chemical manufacturer that sold a product to a chemical mixing facility. Although the manufacturer used a third party to transport the chemicals and sold a “useful product,” the defendant knew that significant leaks and spills occurred during the transfer of its product to storage on the site. The Ninth Circuit held the manufacturer liable on the theory that it arranged for disposal because it knew spills and leaks were inherent in the transfer process. The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that an entity may only qualify as an arranger “when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” [3] In this case, the defendant's “mere knowledge” that spills would occur did not amount to “intent” to dispose. The Court emphasized that arranger liability “requires a fact-intensive inquiry that looks beyond the parties' characterization of the transaction as a ‘disposal' or ‘sale' and seeks to discern whether the arrangement was one Congress intended to fall within the scope of CERCLA's strict-liability provisions.” [4]
So far, the majority of cases applying BNSF have focused on whether defendants fall into the class of parties that Congress intended as arrangers. Generally, these cases show that lower courts are taking seriously the Supreme Court's directive to engage in a “fact-intensive inquiry” of whether the defendants have an “intent to dispose” and have, in many cases, rejected plaintiffs' requests to extrapolate “intent” from “mere knowledge.”
Several decisions issued by Judge O'Neill in the Eastern District of California involving two California dry cleaning sites illustrate this trend. [5] The underlying cases, Hinds Investments v. Team Enterprises, Inc . and Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust , involved claims against the manufacturers of dry cleaning machines [6] and products that recycled spent perchloroethylene (PCE) for reuse. The machine manufacturers intended to dispose of PCE, according to the plaintiffs, because the machines were designed to dispose of PCE-laden wastewater to open drains, as evidenced by manuals for the machines instructing the operators to connect the machines to open drains. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claims on the pleadings, holding that they at best showed that the manufacturers knew that disposal would occur, but that the plaintiffs failed to show that the manufacturers sold the machines with the intention that a portion of the PCE be disposed of. [7] The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence showing that the manufacturers had control over how the products would be used – the defendants did not directly install the equipment, determine how the equipment would be used at the specific dry cleaning sites, or inspect the disposal mechanisms.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims against the manufacturers that designed the recycling equipment for similar reasons. The products at issue were designed to recapture spent PCE and recycle it for future use. In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged that PCE-laden wastewater – that could not be reclaimed – would be discharged to floor drains. In the Western Investment case, the plaintiff presented evidence showing that the defendant required its product to be set up in a manner where PCE would be disposed of down floor drains, and that a representative of the defendant had once visited the store and poured waste PCE down the drain. In both cases, the court held that the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence that the defendants intended to dispose: According to the court, the manufacture of these products and the instructions on their use were insufficient – without actual direction for their use at the facilities – to hold the defendants liable. [8]
Similarly, in the first substantive application of BNSF at the federal appellate level, the Fifth Circuit declined to hold a construction company liable after it damaged an underground methanol pipeline. The case, Celanese Corp. v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc ., [9] involved CERCLA claims brought by the owner of a methanol pipeline against the construction company that struck and damaged the plaintiff's pipeline with a backhoe. Neither party was aware of the damage to the pipeline until it corroded and leaked many years later. In a pre- BNSF decision, the district court rejected the plaintiff's claims based on the defendant's lack of awareness that it had damaged the pipeline. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the defendant did not “plan to take any intentional steps to release methanol from the” pipeline under the BNSF standard of arranger liability. [10] The plaintiff argued that the defendant “intentionally took steps to dispose of methanol by disregarding its obligations to investigate the incident and backfilling the excavated area where the incident had occurred. In other words, [the plaintiff] argue[d] that [the defendant's] conscious disregard of its duty to investigate is tantamount to intentionally taking steps to dispose of methanol.” [11] The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that BNSF “precludes liability under these circumstances,” because the BNSF Court “declined to impose arranger liability for a defendant with more culpable mens rea,” i.e., where that defendant knew that its actions resulted in disposal. [12]
A typical application of arranger liability, even after BNSF , is evidenced in a New Jersey case, Litgo New Jersey, Inc. v. Martin , [13] where the court declined to hold the United States liable for contamination stemming from a facility that produced parts for the military, but did hold the United States liable for contamination stemming from its discarded hazardous wastes. First, the court determined that releases likely occurred from a facility that manufactured precision parts for military aircraft during World War II due to degreasing operations and common disposal practices of solvents at the time. The United States leased a significant amount of machinery and equipment to the facility and conducted frequent inspections of the facility. The court held that this evidence was insufficient to hold the United States liable, because the plaintiffs failed to show that that the United States “owned or possessed any [of the hazardous substances] which were disposed of at the” site, a “necessary element” of arranger liability. [14] However, the court did hold the United States liable as an arranger with respect to hazardous substances that were released from a warehouse at the site during a potentially botched cleanup. Although the United States claimed that it only arranged to have the substances stored at the warehouse, and that the stored substances were in stable condition until difficulties arose during the cleanup, the court held that the United States intended to dispose by hiring a third party “to permanently get rid of what they believed to be waste products.” [15]
At least one case shows, however, that arranger liability is not necessarily limited to the so-called “direct” circumstances, where a defendant contracts with a third party to dispose of the defendant's waste. In United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), [16] the Western District of Washington potentially expanded arranger liability by holding that the design and management of a stormwater system that discharges hazardous substances to a contaminated site may be sufficient to establish arranger liability. The case involved the United States' efforts to recover costs associated with a Superfund site in Washington from WSDOT, which constructed, designed, owned, and operated highways and storm drains that discharged stormwater runoff containing hazardous substances to the site. In a brief analysis, the court held WSDOT liable as a matter of law. The court acknowledged that, under BNSF , arranger liability is limited to entities that “take[] intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance,” and that “the word ‘arrange' implies action directed to a specific purpose.” [17] But WSDOT's actions met that standard, the court opined, because the agency indisputably designed the stormwater system, “[d]esigning is an action directed to a specific purpose,” and that “purpose was to discharge the highway runoff into the environment.” [18] WSDOT knew that the runoff contained hazardous substances, according to the court, had “control over how the collected runoff was disposed of,” and had “the ability to redirect, contain, or treat its contaminated runoff.” [19]
Finally, in American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. United States , [20] the Central District of California held the United States liable for historical contamination stemming from a private facility that refurbished and recycled rocket engines for the military. The Cold War era contracts between the facility and the United States included provisions that vested title in the products with the United States while the products were at the facility. The United States also required the facility to “hog-out” the original propellant from the engines undergoing refurbishment, test-fire some of the rocket engines, and dispose of remaining perchlorate. The United States argued that it only “owned” the perchlorate when it was a part of the rocket engines, and that it did not own the “waste” perchlorate. The court disagreed with the United States' interpretation of the contract, but also held that, “continuous ownership” was unnecessary to constitute arranger liability. Here, according to the court, the United States “owned the materials at the outset, continued to own them during the manufacturing process, and received the finished product, all with knowledge that processing would lead to hazardous wastes.” [21] This case was distinguishable from BNSF , according to the court, because there the defendant sold a useful product and “completely gave up ownership of the chemicals to the site operator.” [22] Allowing the United States to escape liability in this case would, according to the court, “create a loophole in the statute that could be exploited by other polluters.” [23]
Cases Applying BNSF 's Divisibility Ruling
The divisibility prong of the Supreme Court's BNSF ruling arose from the defendant railroads' argument that, because they only owned a portion of the contaminated property, their liability could reasonably be “apportioned.” The Court agreed, affirming a standard that had already been adopted by several circuit courts. Applying Section 422A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the Court held that “apportionment is proper when there is a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each cause to a single harm,” [24] and that the defendants bear the burden of proof on the issue. The Supreme Court also held that the evidence supporting apportionment need not be precise: There must simply be “facts contained in the record reasonably support[ing] the apportionment of liability.” [25]
Only a few cases have applied the “divisibility” prong of the BNSF case. [26] In a case out of the Eastern District of California, United States v. Iron Mountain Mines , [27] the defendants sought reconsideration of a 2002 order holding them jointly and severally liable to the United States. In the 2002 order, the court held that “given the nature of the pollution at the site, it would be difficult to identify distinct harms,” instead instructing the defendants to raise their arguments regarding their lesser responsibility in a contribution proceeding. The defendants argued that BNSF required reconsideration of that decision, because “the Supreme Court would not have granted certiorari for [ BNSF ] if it was only dealing with a factual dispute … the Supreme Court clearly meant to send a signal to other courts that they must begin evaluating apportionment in a different way,” and, after BNSF , “district courts are now mandated to consider apportionment.” [28] The court disagreed, holding that BNSF “simply reiterated the law as established in” what the Supreme Court called “the seminal opinion on the subject of apportionment in CERCLA action,” United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp ., [29] “and then examined the record to resolve a factual question of whether the record supported apportionment. [ BNSF ] did not add a new mandate that District Courts must apportion harm.” [30]
A few cases in 2010 have applied BNSF 's divisibility standard to the evidence submitted by the defendants. For example, in United States v. Saporito , [31] the Northern District of Illinois rejected the defendant's effort to be apportioned zero liability, where the court had already determined that the defendant was liable because it leased equipment to operators at a contaminated site. The defendant argued that, because his equipment was incapable of producing waste by itself, he should be apportioned no liability based solely on his ownership of the equipment. The court disagreed, holding that, because the equipment was “a necessary part of the plating process,” it must be “responsible for some amount of the waste that the process produced.” [32] The defendant also maintained that, because one piece of his equipment – a filter press – could only hold a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste that were removed from the site, the contribution of waste from the filter press was negligible. The court rejected this argument as well, concluding that the defendant failed to provide evidence showing what his proper percentage of liability should be.
A case out of Michigan, ITT Industries, Inc. v. Borgwarner, Inc ., [33] is one of the few cases so far that has evaluated the sufficiency of a defendant's evidence for a divisibility defense. The case involved the North Bronson Industrial Area Superfund site in Michigan. The primary contaminants included metals and volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethylene (TCE), in soil and groundwater stemming from activities at several former industrial facilities and the historical disposal of industrial wastewater into a complex of industrial sewers and waste lagoons. EPA divided the site into two sub-areas, including several operable units in these areas, and entered into several administrative orders with entities connected to the former industrial facilities. One of these entities sought to recover its costs incurred at a former facility from several defendants, including one party whose predecessors conducted activities at the plaintiff's facility, and two other parties with connections to adjacent facilities.
The court rejected the defendants' divisibility arguments, holding that the defendants did not meet their burden of proof. The party with connections to the plaintiff's facility argued that its liability was divisible based on the geographic location of its operations and the types of contaminants released at the site. The court disagreed, holding that the defendant failed to show: (1) that its predecessor's operations were contained within a geographically limited portion of the facility, because that entity leased the entire facility, operated on the entire facility, and evidence showed that releases occurred throughout; and (2) that its predecessor's liability was divisible based on the types of contaminants released at the site, because evidence showed that the predecessor discharged some contaminants containing PCE, and investigating for PCE would have required the same level of effort as investigating for TCE. The two other defendants – with connections to adjacent facilities – argued that their liability was limited to TCE contamination, because that was the only contaminant at issue in the plaintiff's administrative consent order, and because metal contamination at the plaintiff's site originated from on-site operations. The court disagreed, holding that the consent order also required the plaintiff to determine the source of all contaminants on the site, and evidence showed that metals and other contaminants released at the defendants' sites could have reached the plaintiff's site.
Conclusion
The cases decided so far in 2010 affirm that BNSF directed the courts to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into whether parties qualify as arrangers. On the divisibility side, the early cases show that courts are working their way through the evidence put forth by defendants, but there are too few decided cases to draw firm conclusions regarding the quantum of proof necessary to establish a divisibility defense.
For more information, please contact Meli MacCurdy or any member of Marten Law's Environmental Litigation or Waste Cleanup practice groups
LACK OF DIVISIBILITY IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE FOR INNOCENT LANDOWNER, THIRD PARTY, ACT OF GOD DEFENSES.
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 12650-12656
12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money, property, or services, and whether or not the state or a political subdivision has title to the money, property, or services that meets either of the following conditions: (A) Is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or of a political subdivision. (B) Is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money, property, or service is to be spent or used on a state or any political subdivision program or interest, and if the state or political subdivision meets either of the following conditions: (i) Provides or has provided any portion of the money, property, or service requested or demanded. (ii) Reimburses the contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the money, property, or service that is requested or demanded. (2) "Claim" does not include requests or demands for money, property, or services that the state or a political subdivision has paid to an individual as compensation for employment with the state or political subdivision or as an income subsidy with no restrictions on that individual's use of the money, property, or services. (3) "Knowing" and "knowingly" mean that a person, with respect to information, does any of the following: (A) Has actual knowledge of the information. (B) Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information. (C) Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. Proof of specific intent to defraud is not required. (4) "Material" means having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money, property, or services. (5) "Political subdivision" includes any city, city and county, county, tax or assessment district, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries. (6) "Political subdivision funds" means funds that are the subject of a claim presented to an officer, employee, or agent of a political subdivision or where the political subdivision provides, has provided, or will reimburse any portion of the money, property, or service requested or demanded. (7) "Prosecuting authority" refers to the county counsel, city attorney, or other local government official charged with investigating, filing, and conducting civil legal proceedings on behalf of, or in the name of, a particular political subdivision. (8) "Person" includes any natural person, corporation, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business, or trust. (9) "State funds" mean funds that are the subject of a claim presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or where the state provides, has provided, or will reimburse any portion of the money, property, or service requested or demanded. 12651. (a) Any person who commits any of the following enumerated acts in this subdivision shall have violated this article and shall be liable to the state or to the political subdivision for three times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustains because of the act of that person. A person who commits any of the following enumerated acts shall also be liable to the state or to the political subdivision for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any of those penalties or damages, and shall be liable to the state or political subdivision for a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation: (1) Knowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval. (2) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim. (3) Conspires to commit a violation of this subdivision. (4) Has possession, custody, or control of public property or money used or to be used by the state or by any political subdivision and knowingly delivers or causes to be delivered less than all of that property. (5) Is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used or to be used by the state or by any political subdivision and knowingly makes or delivers a receipt that falsely represents the property used or to be used. (6) Knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from any person who lawfully may not sell or pledge the property. (7) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or to any political subdivision, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids, or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or to any political subdivision. (8) Is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim, subsequently discovers the falsity of the claim, and fails to disclose the false claim to the state or the political subdivision within a reasonable time after discovery of the false claim. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court may assess not less than two times and not more than three times the amount of damages which the state or the political subdivision sustains because of the act of the person described in that subdivision, and no civil penalty, if the court finds all of the following: (1) The person committing the violation furnished officials of the state or of the political subdivision responsible for investigating false claims violations with all information known to that person about the violation within 30 days after the date on which the person first obtained the information. (2) The person fully cooperated with any investigation by the state or a political subdivision of the violation. (3) At the time the person furnished the state or the political subdivision with information about the violation, no criminal prosecution, civil action, or administrative action had commenced with respect to the violation, and the person did not have actual knowledge of the existence of an investigation into the violation. (c) Liability under this section shall be joint and several for any act committed by two or more persons. (d) This section does not apply to any controversy involving an amount of less than five hundred dollars ($500) in value. For purposes of this subdivision, "controversy" means any one or more false claims submitted by the same person in violation of this article. (e) This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 or to workers' compensation claims filed pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 3200) of the Labor Code. (f) This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. (g) This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements for the assets of a person that have been transferred to the Commissioner of Insurance, pursuant to Section 1011 of the Insurance Code. 12652. (a) (1) The Attorney General shall diligently investigate violations under Section 12651 involving state funds. If the Attorney General finds that a person has violated or is violating Section 12651, the Attorney General may bring a civil action under this section against that person. (2) If the Attorney General brings a civil action under this subdivision on a claim involving political subdivision funds as well as state funds, the Attorney General shall, on the same date that the complaint is filed in this action, serve by mail with "return receipt requested" a copy of the complaint on the appropriate prosecuting authority. (3) The prosecuting authority shall have the right to intervene in an action brought by the Attorney General under this subdivision within 60 days after receipt of the complaint pursuant to paragraph (2). The court may permit intervention thereafter upon a showing that all of the requirements of Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been met. (b) (1) The prosecuting authority of a political subdivision shall diligently investigate violations under Section 12651 involving political subdivision funds. If the prosecuting authority finds that a person has violated or is violating Section 12651, the prosecuting authority may bring a civil action under this section against that person. (2) If the prosecuting authority brings a civil action under this section on a claim involving state funds as well as political subdivision funds, the prosecuting authority shall, on the same date that the complaint is filed in this action, serve a copy of the complaint on the Attorney General. (3) Within 60 days after receiving the complaint pursuant to paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall do either of the following: (A) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the Attorney General shall assume primary responsibility for conducting the action and the prosecuting authority shall have the right to continue as a party. (B) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action, in which case the prosecuting authority shall have the right to conduct the action. (c) (1) A person may bring a civil action for a violation of this article for the person and either for the State of California in the name of the state, if any state funds are involved, or for a political subdivision in the name of the political subdivision, if political subdivision funds are exclusively involved. The person bringing the action shall be referred to as the qui tam plaintiff. Once filed, the action may be dismissed only with the written consent of the court and the Attorney General or prosecuting authority of a political subdivision, or both, as appropriate under the allegations of the civil action, taking into account the best interests of the parties involved and the public purposes behind this act. No claim for any violation of Section 12651 may be waived or released by any private person, except if the action is part of a court approved settlement of a false claim civil action brought under this section. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the ability of the state or political subdivision to decline to pursue any claim brought under this section. (2) A complaint filed by a private person under this subdivision shall be filed in superior court in camera and may remain under seal for up to 60 days. No service shall be made on the defendant until after the complaint is unsealed. (3) On the same day as the complaint is filed pursuant to paragraph (2), the qui tam plaintiff shall serve by mail with "return receipt requested" the Attorney General with a copy of the complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information the person possesses. (4) Within 60 days after receiving a complaint and written disclosure of material evidence and information alleging violations that involve state funds but not political subdivision funds, the Attorney General may elect to intervene and proceed with the action. (5) The Attorney General may, for good cause shown, move the court for extensions of the time during which the complaint remains under seal pursuant to paragraph (2). The motion may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. (6) Before the expiration of the 60-day period or any extensions obtained under paragraph (5), the Attorney General shall do either of the following: (A) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the Attorney General and the seal shall be lifted. (B) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to conduct the action. (7) (A) Within 15 days after receiving a complaint alleging violations that exclusively involve political subdivision funds, the Attorney General shall forward copies of the complaint and written disclosure of material evidence and information to the appropriate prosecuting authority for disposition, and shall notify the qui tam plaintiff of the transfer. (B) Within 45 days after the Attorney General forwards the complaint and written disclosure pursuant to subparagraph (A), the prosecuting authority may elect to intervene and proceed with the action. (C) The prosecuting authority may, for good cause shown, move for extensions of the time during which the complaint remains under seal. The motion may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. (D) Before the expiration of the 45-day period or any extensions obtained under subparagraph (C), the prosecuting authority shall do either of the following: (i) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the prosecuting authority and the seal shall be lifted. (ii) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to conduct the action. (8) (A) Within 15 days after receiving a complaint alleging violations that involve both state and political subdivision funds, the Attorney General shall forward copies of the complaint and written disclosure to the appropriate prosecuting authority, and shall coordinate its review and investigation with those of the prosecuting authority. (B) Within 60 days after receiving a complaint and written disclosure of material evidence and information alleging violations that involve both state and political subdivision funds, the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, or both, may elect to intervene and proceed with the action. (C) The Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, or both, may, for good cause shown, move the court for extensions of the time during which the complaint remains under seal under paragraph (2). The motion may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. (D) Before the expiration of the 60-day period or any extensions obtained under subparagraph (C), the Attorney General shall do one of the following: (i) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the Attorney General and the seal shall be lifted. (ii) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action but that the prosecuting authority of the political subdivision involved intends to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the action shall be conducted by the prosecuting authority. (iii) Notify the court that both it and the prosecuting authority decline to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to conduct the action. (E) If the Attorney General proceeds with the action pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (D), the prosecuting authority of the political subdivision shall be permitted to intervene in the action within 60 days after the Attorney General notifies the court of its intentions. The court may authorize intervention thereafter upon a showing that all the requirements of Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been met. (9) The defendant shall not be required to respond to any complaint filed under this section until 30 days after the complaint is unsealed and served upon the defendant pursuant to Section 583.210 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (10) When a person brings an action under this subdivision, no other person may bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action. (d) (1) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under subdivision (c) against a Member of the State Senate or Assembly, a member of the state judiciary, an elected official in the executive branch of the state, or a member of the governing body of any political subdivision if the action is based on evidence or information known to the state or political subdivision when the action was brought. (2) A person may not bring an action under subdivision (c) that is based upon allegations or transactions that are the subject of a civil suit or an administrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the state or political subdivision is already a party. (3) (A) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this article based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in an investigation, report, hearing, or audit conducted by or at the request of the Senate, Assembly, auditor, or governing body of a political subdivision, or by the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision, or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information. (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), "original source" means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based, who voluntarily provided the information to the state or political subdivision before filing an action based on that information, and whose information provided the basis or catalyst for the investigation, hearing, audit, or report that led to the public disclosure as described in subparagraph (A). (4) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under subdivision (c) based upon information discovered by a present or former employee of the state or a political subdivision during the course of his or her employment unless that employee first, in good faith, exhausted existing internal procedures for reporting and seeking recovery of the falsely claimed sums through official channels and unless the state or political subdivision failed to act on the information provided within a reasonable period of time. (e) (1) If the state or political subdivision proceeds with the action, it shall have the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action. The qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to continue as a full party to the action. (2) (A) The state or political subdivision may seek to dismiss the action for good cause notwithstanding the objections of the qui tam plaintiff if the qui tam plaintiff has been notified by the state or political subdivision of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the qui tam plaintiff with an opportunity to oppose the motion and present evidence at a hearing. (B) The state or political subdivision may settle the action with the defendant notwithstanding the objections of the qui tam plaintiff if the court determines, after a hearing providing the qui tam plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all of the circumstances. (f) (1) If the state or political subdivision elects not to proceed, the qui tam plaintiff shall have the same right to conduct the action as the Attorney General or prosecuting authority would have had if it had chosen to proceed under subdivision (c). If the state or political subdivision so requests, and at its expense, the state or political subdivision shall be served with copies of all pleadings filed in the action and supplied with copies of all deposition transcripts. (2) (A) Upon timely application, the court shall permit the state or political subdivision to intervene in an action with which it had initially declined to proceed if the interest of the state or political subdivision in recovery of the property or funds involved is not being adequately represented by the qui tam plaintiff. (B) If the state or political subdivision is allowed to intervene under paragraph (A), the qui tam plaintiff shall retain principal responsibility for the action and the recovery of the parties shall be determined as if the state or political subdivision had elected not to proceed. (g) (1) (A) If the Attorney General initiates an action pursuant to subdivision (a) or assumes control of an action initiated by a prosecuting authority pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the office of the Attorney General shall receive a fixed 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, which shall be used to support its ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims. (B) If a prosecuting authority initiates and conducts an action pursuant to subdivision (b), the office of the prosecuting authority shall receive a fixed 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, which shall be used to support its ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims. (C) If a prosecuting authority intervenes in an action initiated by the Attorney General pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) or remains a party to an action assumed by the Attorney General pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the court may award the office of the prosecuting authority a portion of the Attorney General's fixed 33 percent of the recovery under subparagraph (A), taking into account the prosecuting authority's role in investigating and conducting the action. (2) If the state or political subdivision proceeds with an action brought by a qui tam plaintiff under subdivision (c), the qui tam plaintiff shall, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), receive at least 15 percent but not more than 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, depending upon the extent to which the qui tam plaintiff substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. When it conducts the action, the Attorney General's office or the office of the prosecuting authority of the political subdivision shall receive a fixed 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, which shall be used to support its ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims made against the state or political subdivision. When both the Attorney General and a prosecuting authority are involved in a qui tam action pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (c), the court at its discretion may award the prosecuting authority a portion of the Attorney General's fixed 33 percent of the recovery, taking into account the prosecuting authority's contribution to investigating and conducting the action. (3) If the state or political subdivision does not proceed with an action under subdivision (c), the qui tam plaintiff shall, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable for collecting the civil penalty and damages on behalf of the government. The amount shall be not less than 25 percent and not more than 50 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement and shall be paid out of these proceeds. (4) If the action is one provided for under paragraph (4) of subdivision (d), the present or former employee of the state or political subdivision is not entitled to any minimum guaranteed recovery from the proceeds. The court, however, may award the qui tam plaintiff those sums from the proceeds as it considers appropriate, but in no case more than 33 percent of the proceeds if the state or political subdivision goes forth with the action or 50 percent if the state or political subdivision declines to go forth, taking into account the significance of the information, the role of the qui tam plaintiff in advancing the case to litigation, and the scope of, and response to, the employee's attempts to report and gain recovery of the falsely claimed funds through official channels. (5) If the action is one that the court finds to be based primarily on information from a present or former employee who actively participated in the fraudulent activity, the employee is not entitled to any minimum guaranteed recovery from the proceeds. The court, however, may award the qui tam plaintiff any sums from the proceeds that it considers appropriate, but in no case more than 33 percent of the proceeds if the state or political subdivision goes forth with the action or 50 percent if the state or political subdivision declines to go forth, taking into account the significance of the information, the role of the qui tam plaintiff in advancing the case to litigation, the scope of the present or past employee's involvement in the fraudulent activity, the employee's attempts to avoid or resist the activity, and all other circumstances surrounding the activity. (6) The portion of the recovery not distributed pursuant to paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, shall revert to the state if the underlying false claims involved state funds exclusively and to the political subdivision if the underlying false claims involved political subdivision funds exclusively. If the violation involved both state and political subdivision funds, the court shall make an apportionment between the state and political subdivision based on their relative share of the funds falsely claimed. (7) For purposes of this section, "proceeds" include civil penalties as well as double or treble damages as provided in Section 12651. (8) If the state, political subdivision, or the qui tam plaintiff prevails in or settles any action under subdivision (c), the qui tam plaintiff shall receive an amount for reasonable expenses that the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable costs and attorney's fees. All expenses, costs, and fees shall be awarded against the defendant and under no circumstances shall they be the responsibility of the state or political subdivision. (9) If the state, a political subdivision, or the qui tam plaintiff proceeds with the action, the court may award to the defendant its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses against the party that proceeded with the action if the defendant prevails in the action and the court finds that the claim was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment. (h) The court may stay an act of discovery of the person initiating the action for a period of not more than 60 days if the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority show that the act of discovery would interfere with an investigation or a prosecution of a criminal or civil matter arising out of the same facts, regardless of whether the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority proceeds with the action. This showing shall be conducted in camera. The court may extend the 60-day period upon a further showing in camera that the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority has pursued the criminal or civil investigation or proceedings with reasonable diligence and any proposed discovery in the civil action will interfere with the ongoing criminal or civil investigation or proceedings. (i) Upon a showing by the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority that unrestricted participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would interfere with or unduly delay the Attorney General's or local prosecuting authority' s prosecution of the case, or would be repetitious, irrelevant, or for purposes of harassment, the court may, in its discretion, impose limitations on the person's participation, including the following: (1) Limiting the number of witnesses the person may call. (2) Limiting the length of the testimony of the witnesses. (3) Limiting the person's cross-examination of witnesses. (4) Otherwise limiting the participation by the person in the litigation. (j) The False Claims Act Fund is hereby created in the State Treasury. Proceeds from the action or settlement of the claim by the Attorney General pursuant to this article shall be deposited into this fund. Moneys in this fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be used by the Attorney General to support the ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims in furtherance of this article. 12652.5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the University of California shall be considered a political subdivision, and the General Counsel of the University of California shall be considered a prosecuting authority for the purposes of this article, and shall have the right to intervene in an action brought by the Attorney General or a private party or investigate and bring an action, subject to Section 12652, if it is determined that the claim involves the University of California. 12653. (a) No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or from acting in furtherance of a false claims action, including investigating, initiating, testifying, or assisting in an action filed or to be filed under Section 12652. (b) No employer shall discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, deny promotion to, or in any other manner discriminate against, an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or in furthering a false claims action, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in, an action filed or to be filed under Section 12652. (c) An employer who violates subdivision (b) shall be liable for all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, compensation for any special damage sustained as a result of the discrimination, and, where appropriate, punitive damages. In addition, the defendant shall be required to pay litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. An employee may bring an action in the appropriate superior court of the state for the relief provided in this subdivision. (d) An employee who is discharged, demoted, suspended, harassed, denied promotion, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because of participation in conduct which directly or indirectly resulted in a false claim being submitted to the state or a political subdivision shall be entitled to the remedies under subdivision (c) if, and only if, both of the following occur: (1) The employee voluntarily disclosed information to a government or law enforcement agency or acted in furtherance of a false claims action, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed. (2) The employee had been harassed, threatened with termination or demotion, or otherwise coerced by the employer or its management into engaging in the fraudulent activity in the first place. 12654. (a) A civil action under Section 12652 may not be filed more than three years after the date of discovery by the Attorney General or prosecuting authority with jurisdiction to act under this article or, in any event, not more than 10 years after the date on which the violation of Section 12651 was committed. (b) A civil action under Section 12652 may be brought for activity prior to January 1, 1988, if the limitations period set in subdivision (a) has not lapsed. (c) In any action brought under Section 12652, the state, the political subdivision, or the qui tam plaintiff shall be required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a guilty verdict rendered in a criminal proceeding charging false statements or fraud, whether upon a verdict after trial or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, except for a plea of nolo contendere made prior to January 1, 1988, shall estop the defendant from denying the essential elements of the offense in any action which involves the same transaction as in the criminal proceeding and which is brought under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 12652. (e) Subdivision (b) of Section 47 of the Civil Code shall not be applicable to any claim subject to this article. 12655. (a) The provisions of this article are not exclusive, and the remedies provided for in this article shall be in addition to any other remedies provided for in any other law or available under common law. (b) If any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the article and the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (c) This article shall be liberally construed and applied to promote the public interest. 12656. (a) If a violation of this article is alleged or the application or construction of this article is in issue in any proceeding in the Supreme Court of California, a state court of appeal, or the appellate division of a superior court, the person or political subdivision that commenced that proceeding shall serve a copy of the notice or petition initiating the proceeding, and a copy of each paper, including briefs, that the person or political subdivision files in the proceeding within three days of the filing, on the Attorney General, directed to the attention of the False Claims Section in Sacramento, California. (b) Timely compliance with the three-day time period is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the entry of judgment, order, or decision construing or applying this article by the court in which the proceeding occurs, except that within that three-day period or thereafter, the time for compliance may be extended by the court for good cause. (c) The court shall extend the time period within which the Attorney General is permitted to respond to an action subject to this section by at least the same period of time granted for good cause pursuant to subdivision (b) to the person or political subdivision that commenced the proceeding.False Claims Unit
The Attorney General works to protect the state against fraud and other financial misconduct through the enforcement of the California False Claims Act. Investigations and prosecutions brought pursuant to the Act have resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in wrongfully obtained public funds.
The California False Claims Act permits the Attorney General to bring a civil law enforcement action to recover treble damages and civil penalties against any person who knowingly makes or uses a false statement or document to either obtain money or property from the State or avoid paying or transmitting money or property to the State. The False Claims Unit of the Corporate Fraud Section investigates alleged violations of the Act based upon referrals from state, federal and local agencies, tips from members of the public and qui tam complaints, otherwise known as whistleblower complaints.
The California False Claims Act's qui tam provision permits a whistleblower to file an action to enforce the Act. Such lawsuits have resulted in some of the most significant recoveries to date under the Act. The whistleblower's lawsuit is filed under seal to permit the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority to investigate and, if warranted, intervene in the action. The whistleblower may be eligible to receive a share of any recovery, and the Act provides him or her with protection against retaliation. The California False Claims Act is a complex statute, and persons who are interested in bringing a qui tam action are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney.
The False Claims Unit has brought actions against, among others, companies who have sold defective products to the state, mining companies that have filed false reports to conceal the theft of natural resources and avoid paying royalties, and financial institutions that have filed false reports with state agencies.
Members of the public who would like to advise the Attorney General of a potential false claim against the state should contact the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit .
Whistleblowers who bring qui tam actions and local prosecutors who bring actions involving state funds must serve a copy of their complaint and disclosure statement upon the Attorney General. In addition, the parties to any appeal involving the California False Claims Act must serve copies of all filings upon the Attorney General. These materials should be sent to:
The Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: False Claims Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550The False Claims Unit coordinates its efforts with other sections of the Attorney General's Office, including those responsible for Consumer Protection , Antitrust/Business Competition , and the supervision of Charities . Violations of the California False Claims Act involving the Medi-Cal program are investigated and prosecuted by the Attorney General's Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse .
Iqbal and Twombly Result in Dismissal of Pennsylvania DEP Lawsuit
Posted on November 22, 2010 by John BarkettRecent Supreme Court opinions interpreting Rule 12(b)(6) have been applied in an environmental context. A state agency cost recovery action was dismissed for failure to plead facts sufficient to show a plausible claim for relief, resulting in unnecessary additional litigation costs.
When Bell Atlantic v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 554 (2007) was decided, many lawyers lamented the loss of Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (in effect, if there is a claim somewhere within the four corners of a complaint, a motion to dismiss will be denied) as the governing case in Rule 12(b)(6) jurisprudence. Then Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937 (May 18, 2009) came down. The laments became cries for action to restore Conley legislatively, and, indeed, such legislation was introduced in the Congress by Senator Specter who was not returned to office. For now, Iqbal and Twombly remain the law.
For those few lawyers who may not be familiar with Twombly or Iqbal , both cases dealt with the sufficiency of allegations in a complaint to state a cause of action. Twombly dealt with parallel conduct in an antitrust setting that was consistent with lawful behavior but was alleged conclusorily to represent a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Without fact allegations to show why lawful parallel conduct was in fact unlawful anticompetitive behavior, the complaint did not survive. Iqbal dealt with claims against the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI for post-9/11 activities that restrained the liberty of the plaintiffs for a period of time. Other defendants remained in the case. The Supreme Court held that the complaint's allegations against these two executives were not “plausible.” Hence, they were dismissed.
What is a “plausible” claim? The Supreme Court gave this answer in Iqbal : “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” This plausibility standard is not “akin to a probability requirement,' but it asks for more than “a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully.”
It has not taken long for Iqbal and Twombly to be applied in an environmental dispute. Just ask Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On November 3, 2010, Magistrate Judge Lenihan in the Western District of Pennsylvania, citing this Supreme Court precedent and the Third Circuit's interpretation of it in Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside , 578 F.3d 203 (3 rd Cir. 2009), dismissed a CERCLA amended complaint with prejudice. The 2009 action involved $3.7 million in costs incurred in a landfill response action that was completed in 2004. The DEP characterized the excavation, drum and soil removal, and restoration work it conducted as a remedial action for which it had six years within which to file suit under CERCLA. Three defendants argued that the DEP had engaged in a removal action for which it had only three years from the conclusion of the removal action within which to bring suit. The magistrate judge agreed with the defendants and because suit was brought beyond three years, the case was dismissed. The magistrate accepted the factual averments in the amended complaint as true but disregarded the DEP's “legal conclusions.” Because the actions described in the complaint were “the equivalent of a CERCLA removal action,” she held, the DEP had failed “to set forth sufficient factual matter to show a plausible claim for relief.”
The magistrate judge was persuaded by the administrative record that “repeatedly and consistently” characterized the DEP's response action as “interim.” The DEP was not helped by its 2002 “Analysis of Alternatives” under Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act which stated that the interim response was warranted but that the response as then proposed “is not a final remedial response.” The magistrate judge rejected the DEP's argument that a “prompt interim response” would be a removal action in CERCLA terms but that a “limited interim response” in fact was the same as a remedial action under CERCLA.
Under Conley , it is likely that the motion to dismiss would have been denied, discovery would have occurred, and the limitations question would have been decided under Rule 56's summary judgment standards. Had the DEP filed suit before Twombly , it would have been able to so argue. Of course, if it had done that, it could have been within the three-year removal action window. Not having done so, it had to deal with Iqbal and Twombly's preference for using the motion to dismiss as a way to address escalating discovery costs in federal court litigation where a claim is not “plausible.”
" In Higgins v. Houghton, 25 Cal. 255, where it was held that the State of California, by virtue of the grant of March 3d, 1853, which in some respects is similar to the grant under consideration, ' became the owner of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections absolutely, not only as to quantity, but as to position also,' the Court impliedly recognized the fact that it was within the power of Congress and the State by mutual agreement to change the provisions of the grant. After stating that there had been no legislation by Congress prior to the grant which would interfere with the conclusions reached in said case, the Court said: ' And if there has been any legislation since the grant that conflicts with the conclusion, it must be null and void, unless, indeed, it has been acceded to by the grantee.' Here such subsequent legislation was had by Congress, and it was NOT acceded to by the grantee (Ted Arman).
And he who first connects his own labor with property thus situated and open to general exploration, does, in natural justice, acquire a better right to its use and enjoyment than others who have not given such labor.
Among these the most important are the rights of miners to be protected in their selected localities, and the rights of those who, by prior appropriation, have taken the waters from their natural beds, and by costly artificial works have conducted them for miles over mountains and ravines to supply the necessities of gold diggers, and without which the most important interests of the mineral region would remain without development. So fully recognized have become these rights, that without any specific legislation conferring or confirming them, they are alluded to and spoken of in various acts of the legislature in the same manner as if they were rights which had been vested by the most distinct expression of the will of the law-makers.'
" This doctrine of right by prior appropriation was recognized by the legislation of Congress, in 1866." 1
The limitation of the doctrine of prior appropriation and the restrictions as to reasonable use, were touched upon as follows:
"The right to water by prior appropriation, thus recognized and established as the law of miners on the mineral lands of the public domain, is limited in every case, in quantity and quality, by the uses for which the appropriation is made. A different use of the water subsequently does not affect the right; that is subject to the same limitations, whatever the use. The appropriation does not confer such an absolute right to the body of the water diverted, that the owner can allow it, after its diversion, to run to waste, and prevent others from using it for mining or other legitimate purposes; nor does it confer such a right that he can insist upon the flow of the water without deterioration in quality, where such deterioration does not defeat nor impair the uses to which the water is applied.
" Such was the purport of the ruling of the Supreme Court of California. i Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. U. S. 510.
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." 4
1 11 Cal. 143.
2 13 Cal. 33. See, also, Lobdell v. Simpson, 2 Nev. 274.
8 See, to the samo effect, Hill v. Smith, 27 Cal. 483; Yale's Mining Claims, 194. * Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. U. S. 514.
" In the case of Tartar v. The Spring Creek Water and Mining Company, decided in 1855, the Supreme Court of Califor nia 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.' 1
i 8 Cal. 397.
The officers of the Government are the agents of the law. They cannot act beyond its provisions, nor make compromises
1 Decision Commissioner, Dec. 10th, 1809, Copp's U. S. Mining Decisions, '2l,. - Decision of Assistant Secretary Interior, April 19th, 1872, Copp's U. S. Mining Decisions, 88.
3 Lindsay i'. Howes, 2 Black. U. S. 557; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377.
§ 2319. Mineral lands open to purchase by citizens.—
All valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase by citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.
Sec. 1 of the Act of 1872. 17 U. S. Stat. 91, was identical with the above.
Sec. 1 of the Statute of July 26th, 1860, read as follows: Sec. 1. That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be preecribed bylaw, and subject also to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States. [14 U. S. Stat. 231.]
§ 2473. Penalty for prosecuting fraudulent suits, etc., in California. —Every person who, for the purpose of setting up or establishing any claim against the United States to lands, mines, or minerals within the State of California, presents, or causes or procures to be presented, before any Court, judge, com mission, or commissioner, or other officer of the United States, any false, forged, altered, or counterfeited petition, certificate, order, report, decree, concession, denouncement, deed, patent, diseiio, map, expediente or part of an expediente, title-paper, or written evidence of right, title, or claim to lands, minerals, or mines in the State of California, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited, or any falsely dated petition, certificate, order, report, decree, concession, denouncement, deed, patent, confirmation, diseiio, map, expediente or part of an expediente, title-paper, or written evidence of right, title, or claim to lands, mines, or minerals in California, knowing the same to be falsely dated; and every person who prosecutes in any Court of the United States, by appeal or otherwise, any claim against the United States for lands, mines, or minerals in California, which claim is founded upon, or evidenced by, any petition, certificate, order, report, decree, concession, denouncement, deed, patent, confirmation, diseiio, map, expediente or part of an expediente, title-paper, or written evidence of right, title, or claim, which has been forged, altered, counterfeited, or falsely dated, knowing the same to be forged, altered, counterfeited, or falsely dated, shall be punishable as prescribed in section twentyfour hundred and seventy-one. Sec. 3, Act of May 18th, 1858, 11 U. S. Stat. 291
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, in his recently published book, writing about this moment in history, explains it this way:
“We were just wrong.”
Devils Lake Ruling: State Doesn`t Need EPA Approval
Amanda Tetlak 11/23/2010 Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot get in the way of the state deciding to move more water off of Devils Lake.
The state had been seeking EPA approval for either a permanent change or variance in water quality standards on the lower Sheyenne and Red rivers in order to increase controlled releases. However, upon the request of senators Conrad and Byron Dorgan, the Obama Administration reviewed the issue and concluded that the state can proceed to move water without EPA approval.
"This is incredibly important news obviously for Devils Lake, and the whole Devils lake basin as well as downstream cities as well," said Conrad.
Conrad says the State now has considerable and immediate flexibility to operate the outlet as leaders best see fit.Water Infrastructure Projects Designated in EPA Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications
Spearfish hydro plant gets water quality certification
DENR to issue final water quality decision today
By Kaija Swisher
SPEARFISH -- The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources today issued a final water quality certification to the city of Spearfish.
Black Hills Pioneer
The certification gets the city one step closer to obtaining a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the former Homestake Mining Company's hydroelectric power plant.
“In my mind, we've cleared the last big hurdle,” Cheryl Johnson, the Spearfish public works administrator, said previously. “I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.”
City officials and Mayor Jerry Krambeck could not be reached Wednesday morning for comment.
The Spearfish Hydroelectric plant was built in 1910 to provide power to the Homestake Mine and has two generators. According to previous documents submitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the city of Spearfish and numerous other departments, when the hydroelectric plant was constructed, water was diverted at the Maurice intake located in Spearfish Canyon. From there it flows into pipes that deliver the water approximately 4.5 miles to the plant located in Spearfish City Park, where it turns twin turbines. The water then exits the plant, flows through Spearfish and onto its confluence with the Redwater River north of town.
The city bought the plant from Homestake Mining Company in 2004 for $250,000, and it began the licensing process after officials discovered that the plant would not be exempt from needing a license.
The certification is required under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, in order to license the hydroelectric plant, a process the city began in 2007. The city of Spearfish first submitted a request for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification in September 2008, which was withdrawn and resubmitted in August 2009 and again in July 2010.
The process became delayed when the city of Spearfish proposed to alter Homestake's historically diverted flow to allow some flow to bypass the diversion dam at Maurice and remain in Spearfish Creek.
Since then the U.S. Forest Service, Division of Environmental Services and the city of Spearfish negotiated flow criteria based on critical low flows that will allow the city to comply with the operational conditions as well as protect and maintain the water quality standards of Spearfish Creek.
“The 401 certification includes conditions for the city to follow when operating and maintaining the hydropower plant to protect and maintain the water quality standards and beneficial uses assigned to Spearfish Creek,” Jeanne Goodman, administrator of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Surface Water Quality Program, said previously.
The 401 certification will be part of an application packet that includes a Historic Properties Management Plan and the Environmental Assessment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission board, which will make a final decision on the hydroelectric plant's license.
The fully negotiated settlement between DENR, the city, and the U.S. Forest Service can be found at http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/PNSpearfish401cert.aspx . An environmental assessment of the hydroelectric plant has been completed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and can also be found at the DENR Web site.
Multiproject Program Grants (P42)
Superfund Research Program
With this 2010 RFA, NIEHS proposed the continuation of the Superfund Hazardous Substance Research and Training Program (SRP) to address the broad, complex health and environmental issues that arise from the multimedia nature of hazardous waste sites. Grants made under the SRP are for coordinated, multi-project, multi-disciplinary programs. The objective remains to establish and maintain a unique Program that links and integrates biomedical research with related engineering, hydrogeologic, and ecologic components.
The 2010 RFA was released on October 29, 2010. The application deadline for the 2010 Request for Applications (RFA) for the Multiproject Program (P42) grants is April 15, 2011.
- RFA-ES-09-012: Superfund Hazardous Substance Research and Training Program (P42) - html version (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/ RFA-ES-10-010.html)
- Application Guidelines (http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/1/Funding/Appl ication Guidelines ES-10-010 11-3-10 final.pd f) (184 KB)
- Suggested Research Topics (http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/1/Funding/Sugg ested Research Topics ES-10-010 11-4-10.pdf) (52 KB)
There will be a free informational webinar, Superfund Research Program Funding Opportunities, (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/s rp/funding/rfa.cfm) on December 15, 2010, 2:00 - 3:30p.m. ET. Please refer to EPA's CLU-IN website (http://clu-in.org/live/#Superfund_Research_Pr ogram_Funding_Opportunities_20101215) to register.
“Most ‘coordination’ (between the state and regional boards) is
reactive and happens at the end of processes when something goes
wrong and there are appeals or lawsuits,” Chris Crompton, manager
of environmental resources for Orange County, told the Commission
in written testimony. “This ‘back-end coordination’ is inefficient and
hence costly, and has real environmental impacts from delayed
decisions/actions.”112“As for the fairness of the process, the regulated community is
frustrated by the fact that members of the SWCRB and the nine
RWQCBs say they are unapproachable under state law,’’ complained
Mick Pattinson, president and CEO of Barratt American Homes, a
Southern California homebuilder. “While it is perfectly acceptable
and appropriate to speak with elected city, state and federal officials,
it is unfathomable that the same rights do not apply to unelected
board members.”NAHB Sues Army Corps of Engineers Over Wetlands Classification
NAHB has joined in a lawsuit with the American Farm Bureau Federation and the United States Sugar Corporation that challenges a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision to begin treating certain farm fields as wetlands, affecting both the value of the property and the process for developing or building on it.
American Farm Bureau Federation et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers resembles a suit brought simultaneously by New Hope Power Company and Okeelanta Corporation. Both suits have been before Judge K. Michael Moore of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida and challenge the Corps' recent attempts to improperly change a 17-year-old regulation that provides that land used for agriculture since at least 1985 can no longer be treated as wetlands.
In 1993, the Corps adopted a rule establishing that agricultural lands converted from wetlands prior to 1985 — or “prior converted croplands” — would be excluded from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, if a farmer decides to utilize land that has been excluded from regulation for some other use or to sell it to a residential or commercial builder, there is no need to get a new jurisdictional determination or go through the Clean Water Act permitting process.
However, in a 2009 memorandum, Corps Director of Civil Works Steven Stockton approved a new standard to regulate these agricultural lands when there is a change in their use. The regulatory uncertainty caused by this action is what prompted the lawsuits from NAHB and other industry groups.
In a recent positive development, this October, Judge Moore ruled in the New Hope Power case that the Corps could not change its policy without going through the usual federal process of giving public notice and offering a set time for comments from stakeholders or other interested parties. However, as yet there is no indication whether the government will appeal this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Posted by Michael DeyFlood Insurance is a Good Thing
CRS Communities can Encourage Purchase of Policies
Gary Heinrichs and Bruce Bender
Co-Chairs of the Insurance Committee
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Editor’s Note: Communities that participate in the CRS can receive credit points for
promoting flood insurance, but that’s not the most important reason for supporting the
purchase and maintenance of building and contents coverage. This article, excerpted from one
that appeared in the Association of State Floodplain Managers’ News & Views, reiterates the
rationale for making flood insurance a priority in any community’s flood mitigation approach.Statement of Purpose
The NFIP/CRS Update is a publication of the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System. Its purpose
is to provide 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
NFIP/CRS 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.comSome Program Notes
New Addition to CRS Team
Cristina M. Martinez, CFM, has joined ISO’s Flood Program Team as the new Flood
Technical Coordinator. Cristina has an engineering background with emphasis in water
resources. She has worked for the City of Boulder, Colorado, and for the last few years has
been Colorado’s State Coordinator for the National Flood Insurance Program. Her expertise in
NFIP requirements, Map Modernization, RiskMAP, the CRS, and many other initiatives and
activities make her an invaluable and much-welcome member of team. Reach her at
cristina.martinez@iso.com.
NFIP Extended through September 2011
On September 30, 2010, the President signed a one-year extension of the National Flood
Insurance Program. The program had been operating under the latest of a series of short-term
extensions since its authority expired earlier this year. The extension provides important
stability for FEMA, Write Your Own insurance companies, real estate agents, homebuilders,
home buyers and sellers, and policy holders because when the NFIP is allowed to expire, flood
insurance policies cannot be purchased or renewed.
No other provisions were included in the reauthorization. Instead, FEMA and Congress will
continue their consideration of needed reforms to the NFIP and presumably pass a
comprehensive bill during 2011.
Some new CRS Coordinators in FEMA Regional Offices
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/about/regions.
Region 1 – Elizabeth Rosario—617/832-4748, Elizabeth.Rosario@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—940/898-5279, Linda.Delamare@dhs.gov
Region 7 - Roger Benson—816/283-7031, Roger.Benson@dhs.gov
Region 8 – Barb Fitzpatrick—303/235-4715, Barb.Fitzpatrick@dhs.gov
Region 9 – Cynthia McKenzie—510/627-7190, Cynthia.McKenzie@dhs.gov
Region 10 – Jeff Woodward—425/487-4664, Jeff.Woodward@dhs.gov
CRS Coordinator’s Manual and Activity Worksheets approved by OMB
As noted in the last issue of the Update, existing copies of the Coordinator’s Manual and
Activity Worksheets (AWs) are still valid, even though they bear an expiration date that has
passed (August 31, 2010). Now the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has officially
renewed its approval of these CRS materials. The stock of Manuals in the FEMA Publications
Warehouse is being modified to display the new expiration date of September 30, 2013.Got a Stormwater Utility?
There are an estimated 1200 to 1500 stormwater utilities in the United States, and more are
forming all the time, according to a report by Dr. C. Warren Campbell of Western Kentucky
University. Students in Professor Campbell’s Floodplain Management course have for several
years compiled annual data on stormwater utilities, the way in which they set their fees,
whether they have been challenged in court and, if so, what the outcome was.
Campbell defines a stormwater utility as “a funding approach requiring residents to pay a
recurring charge that supports community stormwater initiatives. The fee is dedicated to the
maintenance, design, construction, and administration of the stormwater system” with an eye
toward managing water quality, quantity, or both. Some CRS communities have found a stormwater
utility provides reliable funding support for their credited operations under Activity 450
(Stormwater Management) and Activity 540 (Drainage System Maintenance).
Here are some highlights from the report
▬ No community is too small or too large to have a stormwater utility. The smallest community
identified was a Florida town with a population of 33; the largest was Los Angeles (population
over 3 million). The average size of a community with a stormwater utility is about 82,000.Holy @$#%! According to neuroscientists from Britain's Keele University, dropping the f-bomb can actually relieve physical pain . In the upcoming August 5th issue of the journal NeuroReport, the researchers say swearing is a different phenomenon than most language. It activates emotional centers in the right side of the brain, rather than those &#*@ing cerebral areas reserved for regular #$#y communication in the left hemisphere.
The researchers had groups of undergraduate students submerge their hands in a tub of witch$@&#* cold water and repeat the swear word of their choice. And students could tolerate the icy abyss much longer than when they were only allowed to say more socially acceptable words. The researchers say the foul-mouthed students also had increased heart rates, which indicates that swearing activates a &#*@ing classic “fight or flight” response. You know, when you act all bad$(# to downplay the fact that you're scared @$#%^ss.
The study suggests that swearing is an ancient social phenomenon with both emotional and physical effects. And also that socially acceptable words don't mean @$#% when your pain really hurts like a son-of-a-%@&$#.
> Related Article: Why the #$%! Do We Swear? For Pain Relief
U.S. seeks input on hydro development at existing Reclamation facilities
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S. 11/5/10 (PennWell) --The Bureau of Reclamation has issued a Federal Register Notice announcing the availability for public review and comment on the Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities Draft Report.
The draft report is an assessment of the economic and technical potential for hydropower development at existing Reclamation owned non-powered dams and structures.
The draft report provides an inventory of hydropower potential at existing Reclamation sites using broad energy and economic criteria. It does not make any recommendation for development of the sites included in the report.
Reclamation signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Energy and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to increase renewable energy generation by focusing on development of sustainable, low impact and small hydropower projects. To help meet the goal of the MOU, Reclamation produced an updated list of facilities and sites best suited for projects to increase sustainable hydropower generation.
Comments may be submitted by mail or e-mail to:
Michael Pulskamp
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver Federal Center, Bldg 67
PO Box 25007
Denver, CO 80225
Email: mpulskamp@usbr.gov
Comments must be received by Dec. 3, 2010
The draft report and Federal Register Notice is available for download on Reclamation's website at www.usbr.gov/power/.For more hydropower news and information, click here
Energy Storage Breakthrough is Put to the Test in Bella Coola
Posted on 11/11/2010
Storing away food and supplies is a simple practice we all do to weather snowstorms and other difficult circumstances.
Doing the same with electricity, however, isn't that simple.
Energy storage, though, is a top priority on the agenda of North American governments and power producers who are under pressure to find clean, reliable backup power for periods of peak demand.
North America has committed significant funding to the development of energy storage technologies and researchers are beginning to learn how to store meaningful amounts of renewable power that can be tapped on demand.
Hydropower is poised to play an important part in the growth of energy storage, a promising concept that could transform the power industry.
BC Hydro is testing what could be the most viable method for storing large amounts of power at its Clayton Falls hydroelectric plant in Bella Coola, about 248 miles north of Vancouver.
The run-of-river plant is now capable of using its surplus electricity to produce and store hydrogen through a process known as electrolysis. The hydrogen can then be used in a 100-kilowatt fuel cell to generate electricity when demand peaks.
This new source of emission-free power is replacing the need for power made from diesel-fueled generators. BC Hydro estimates the demonstration project known as the Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power system (HARP) will lower the community's diesel consumption by 200,000 liters a year and lower greenhouse gas emissions by 600 tons a year.
“It's a very cost-effective and convenient way to store renewable energy,” said David Field, a spokesman for BC Citizens for Green Energy. “It's better than importing coal-fired electricity from Alberta and the U.S. to accomplish the same thing, which is what we're doing right now.”
Even more interesting is the project's use of smart grid technology.
A microgrid controller acts as a “brain” of sorts to manage the power system. The microgrid controller monitors the balance between supply and demand and uses the information to determine when to convert power into hydrogen and when to convert the hydrogen into power to meet increased demand.
“Smart grid technology is going to let us actively manage the electrical grid,” Field said. “It's the biggest change in the electrical system since Thomas Edison. “Using renewable resources such as water to cheaply produce hydrogen that can be used in fuel cells to generate power for homes and businesses has been a long-held dream for many researchers and chemists.
The demonstration project at Canyon Falls may prove to be a major step toward fulfilling that goal.FERC Shifts into High Gear for Hydropower Developers
Posted on 9/29/2010
Source of Information
Information presented in this document is based on a preliminary online search of documents and websites, including State Water Quality Criteria and Standards and Clean Water Act 303(d) Integrated Reports, for the 23 States and five Territories that have marine waters. This document is for information only, and is not to be used for regulatory purposes.EPA issues November 15, 2010 Memorandum: Integrated reporting and listing decisions related to ocean acidification
Published 16 November 2010
The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide information to assist the Regions and States in preparing and reviewing Integrated Reports related to ocean acidification (OA) impacts under Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). As part of a settlement agreement, EPA agreed to issue this Memorandum by November 15, 2010, describing how EPA will proceed with regard to the issue of OA and the 303(d) program. This Memorandum recognizes the seriousness of aquatic life impacts associated with OA and describes how States can move forward, where OA information exists, to address OA during the 303(d) 2012 listing cycle using the current 303(d) Integrated Reporting (IR) framework. At the same time, this Memorandum also acknowledges and recognizes that in the case of OA, information is largely absent or limited at this point in time to support the listing of waters for OA in many States.
The Memorandum reaffirms that States should list waters not meeting water quality standards, including marine pH water quality criteria, for their 303(d) 2012 lists, and should also solicit existing and readily available information on OA using the current 303(d) listing program framework. EPA will provide additional 303(d) guidance to the States when future OA research efforts provide the basis for improved monitoring and assessment methods, including approaches being developed under other Federal efforts. This future OA guidance may be in the form of stand-alone OA IR guidance, or as part of EPA's routine, biennial IR update. EPA also encourages States to focus their efforts on OA-vulnerable waters (e.g., waters with coral reefs, marine fisheries, shellfish resources) that already are listed for other pollutants (e.g., nutrients) in order to promote ecological restoration.
- Memorandum on “Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions Related to Ocean Acidification” (PDF) (16 pp, 5.5MB, About PDF ) Denise Keehner November 15, 2010
United States Environmental Protection Agency , 15 November 2010. Web site .
EPA Could Add DC Sites To Superfund List
According to the Washington Examiner , EPA has notified the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments that it will list three sites in Washington, D.C. on the Superfund National Priorities List. They include: 1) the Kenilworth Landfill, 2) a Washington Gas property near the Anacostia River and 3) the PEPCO Benning Road power plant site.
These sites have been on the CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability System) list for some time. The DC City Council is concerned that it takes EPA too long to clean up sites once they are placed on the Priorities List, so a councilmember is introducing legislation to force property owners to clean up their sites.
When an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste site is identified, information about the site is entered into a databased called CERCLIS. The CERCL ACt was passed in 1980 and is more commonly knowns as Superfund. The Superfund trust enables the government to clean up hazardous waste sites and then recover cleanup costs from pulluters. (Washington Examiner, 11/18/2010, AAEA "Our Unfair Share: Pollution in Washington, D.C., 1998)Listing of Certified Organic Operations Now Available from the National Organic Program
November 17, 2010 19:32
Listing of Certified Organic Operations Now Available from the National Organic Program
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing ServiceThe National Organic Program (NOP) made available today a complete listing of organic operations certified by U.S. Department of Agriculture accredited certifying agents during the 2009 certification year.
For the first time, the listing, available at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/nop/, can be searched by keywords, name of operation, certifying agent, certificate numbers, primary and secondary scopes of certification, country, state, and products produced.
The database will serve as a useful tool to increase marketing opportunities for certified organic operations. It will also help consumers better locate sources of certified organic product.
+ National Organic Program search
Category:
Source:
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food insecure —At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low food security and very low food security .
- 14.7 percent (17.4 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2009.
- Essentially unchanged from 14.6 percent in 2008.
Low food security —These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries.
- 9.0 percent (10.6 million) of U.S. households had low food security in 2009.
- Essentially unchanged from 8.9 percent in 2008.
Very low food security —In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. In reports prior to 2006, these households were described as “food insecure with hunger.” For a description of the change in food security labels, see “ Definitions of Hunger and Food Security .”
- 5.7 percent (6.8 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2009.
- Unchanged from 5.7 percent in 2008.
The defining characteristic of very low food security is that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food. Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the conditions that households in this category typically report in the annual food security survey. Click here for a graph of the percentage of households reporting specific conditions.
Fifty-six leading denominations and faith-based organizations released a joint letter Wednesday calling on the U.S. Senate to uphold the EPA's power to protect the environment and public's health through the Clean Air Act.
In particular, the religious leaders , including Protestants, Jews, Unitarians and other faiths, noted that the effort by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to delay EPA controls on greenhouse gas emissions should be turned down.
In December 2009, the EPA finalized its study on the effects of greenhouse gases, and announced that these emissions are indeed a threat to public health and welfare.
Rockefeller's bill (S.3072) was introduced in March 2010, and would put the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases and other air pollution on hold for two more years.
The joint letter opens as follows: "As communities and people of faith, we are called to protect and serve God's great Creation and work for justice for all of God's people.
"We believe that the United States must take all appropriate and available actions to prevent the worst impacts of climate change; we therefore urge you to oppose any efforts to undermine the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
"We have seen various challenges to the CAA this session including Senator Rockefeller's proposal to delay regulation of greenhouse gases under the Environmental Protection Agency. We urge you to protect the Clean Air Act and allow the EPA to use the full strength of the law to ensure that God's Creation and God's children remain healthy."
(The full text of the joint letter and list of signers is available at nccecojustice.org ).
According to the U.S. Climate Network , the Rockefeller bill is designed to give polluters free rein to dump carbon pollution into the atmosphere, and would release polluters from their responsibility to keep communities and people safe from harmful emissions.
"As leaders in our communities of faith, we take very seriously our charge to act as stewards of God's Creation," said Rev. Harriet Olson, deputy general secretary of United Methodist Women. "Preserving a strong Clean Air Act and limiting the harm done by climate change are very important and concrete things we can do today working together as people of faith acting in that stewardship capacity."
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 - SimilarNew 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 - CachedFurther Than Atheism: Can Environmentalism Replace Religion ?
Irregular Times' weekly column on the world beyond the gods.
irregulartimes.com/further10.html - Cached - SimilarEnvironment 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
BHP fires broadside over mining tax
Updated Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:06pm AEDTBHP Billiton has warned the Federal Government to consider the country's attractiveness as an investment destination when finalising its position on the proposed mining tax.
BHP's chairman Jacques Nasser has told shareholders at its annual general meeting in Perth that governments have a right to change tax systems.
However he has urged the Federal Government to take into account the impact of any change on foreign investment.
Mr Nasser says BHP has paid nearly $3 billion in taxes and royalties on its WA operations last year.
And, he says any new tax regime should not negatively affect Australia's competiveness on a world stage.
Mr Nasser also defended the company's decision to dump its hostile takeover bid for Canadian company PotashCorp.
He says the company will continue to invest in Canada's potash basin and the bid money was part of the business strategy to add value for shareholders so he does not see it as a cost.
It comes after a failed acquisition of Rio Tinto in 2008 and the collapse of a Rio Pilbara iron ore joint venture earlier this year.
All three bids are believed to have cost a total of $800 million.
Mr Nasser has also assured shareholders the inability to close the deals does not mean the company will be chasing smaller acquisitions of lesser quality.
Protests
Green groups turned out in force to protest at the BHP meeting.
Dozens of protesters were moved on by police after they became vocal outside the meeting at the Convention Centre.
The groups have releaed an alternative annual report for BHP which questions its human rights and environment record.
It says dispossessed people around a Colombian mine are now being helped but in Mozambique, a million people may be affected by a fume treatment bypass at an aluminium smelter.
Report co-ordinator Natalie Lowry says BHP Billiton should show more leadership.
"Make sure that all operations are at the highest environmental standards, that they are aware of community removals," she said.
"The issue of human rights; BHP should avoid profiting from colonisation or military occupation."
The report says the company should disclose all monies paid to governments, to avoid allegations like the claim that several million dollars paid for Cambodian bauxite concessions never made it into public coffers.
Uranium
WA's Conservation Council director Piers Verstegen says it is concerned about BHP's plans to mine uranium in the state.
"If BHP has confidence in their ability to manage the extremely dangerous industry that is uranium mining, then they'd have no hesitation in subjecting this industry to a full, open and transparent public inquiry," he said.
"So, we're concerned that BHP have acted behind the scenes to block this inquiry."
Mr Verstegen says there is concern about the company's safety plans.
"What we are particularly concerned about in Western Australia is BHP's pursuit of the Yeelirrie uranium mining proposal," he said.
"There's a range of serious issues relating to this proposal, including the transport of radioactive material through communities."
How Many People Lived in Food-Insecure Households?
- In 2009, 50.2 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 17.2 million children.
- Of these individuals, 12.2 million adults and 5.4 million children lived in households with very low food security.
- Children's food security is affected to some extent in most food-insecure households. In 2009, 9 million children (12.1 percent of children) lived in households with food insecurity among children (see the ERS report, Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Characteristics ). However, children are usually protected from substantial reductions in food intake even in households with very low food security. In 2009, 988,000 children (1.3 percent of the Nation's children) lived in households with very low food security among children.
Cook Inlet toxic dumping gains scrutiny
• 9th Circuit Court gives water pollution control to state, taking away federal oversight
By Sean Pearson
Homer TribuneThe state applauded a recent decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that gives power over regulating water pollution from the federal to the state government, but while toxic dumping continues the change gives little comfort to conservation groups.
The higher court is upholding the transfer of the permitting program for discharges under the Federal Clean Water Act from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. At the same time, the court sent back a Cook Inlet dumping permit for additional review.
The first decision has no impact on the second as of yet, since the EPA is still the permitting authority for Cook Inlet. That's not much consolation to a coalition of fishing, Alaska Native and conservation groups who continue to shake their heads about how to mitigate the dumping of toxic oil and metals into the fisheries-rich waters.
According to Cam Leonard, attorney handling the case for the Alaska Department of Law, the DEC is taking over the permitting process in four stages, with oil and gas being the very last.
“The DEC hasn't actually taken over the permitting process yet,” Leonard said. “That will happen a year from now. For now, the EPA retains permitting authority.”
In the most recent petition for review of an order of the Environmental Protection Agency, Cook Inletkeeper and four other petitioners had originally challenged the EPA's grant of a permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The permit authorizes water pollution caused by continued operation of natural gas and oil extraction facilities in Cook Inlet.
On Oct. 21, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision which left in place a Clean Water Act permit that the coalition says, “allows the oil and gas industry to virtually triple the amount of toxic pollution it dumps annually into Cook Inlet fisheries.”
The decision also recognized flaws in the State of Alaska's efforts to implement “anti-degradation” policy when establishing the dilution allowances or “mixing zones” for industry wastes. It remanded the permit to EPA to correct these deficiencies.
According to the coalition of fishing, and Alaska Native and conservation groups, the recent court opinion recognizes significant flaws in the State of Alaska's Clean Water Act permitting program, yet still allows toxic oil and gas dumping to continue unabated in Cook Inlet's rich and productive fisheries.
Cook Inlet is the only coastal waterbody in the United States where EPA allows the oil and gas industry to dump toxic drilling and production wastes into important subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it established five-year terms for discharge permits, with the intent that technology would improve over time and pollution eventually would be eliminated. However, according to the groups who brought the challenge to the oil and gas industry permit— Cook Inletkeeper, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund, the Native Village of Port Graham, and the Native Village of Nanwalek — the current permit vastly increases the amount of toxic dumping in Cook Inlet compared to the previous permit. The industry is now authorized to discharge approximately 100,000 gallons of oil and over 835,000 pounds of toxic metals each year.
For illustration, the groups point 100,000 gallons is what it takes to fill an Olympic size swimming pool.
“The oil and gas industry continues to put profits over our fisheries and the countless families they support,” said Bob Shavelson, Executive Director of Cook Inletkeeper. “When the oil jobs and taxes are gone, we'll still need healthy, intact fisheries to sustain our communities.
The court's decision clearly shows EPA needs to get serious about protecting our fisheries.”
When the DEC takes over in a year, and the new permitting process begins, the groups will monitor to see if promised changes take place in Cook Inlet water standards. In the meantime, public input will be sought by the DEC in meeting dates to be announced, according to state attorney Leonard.Senate approves long-delayed $1.15 billion black farmer settlement
By Alexander Bolton - 11/19/10 05:05 PM ET
The Senate on Friday afternoon approved $1.15 billion to fund a long-awaited legal settlement between the Department of Agriculture and black farmers who claimed government discrimination.
The upper chamber also approved $3.4 billion to settle complaints that the Department of the Interior mismanaged Native American money accounts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) touted one of the first legislative accomplishments of the lame-duck session.
“Black farmers and Native American trust account holders have had to wait a long time for justice, but now it will finally be served,” Reid said in a statement. “I am heartened that Democrats and Republicans were able to come together to deliver the settlement that these men and women deserve for the discrimination and mismanagement they faced in the past.
“This issue has been of great importance to me, and I am pleased these long-suffering Americans can now receive the closure that they deserve,” Reid added.
The 1999 settlement between the Agriculture Department and black farmers is one of the biggest in civil rights settlements in history.
Black farmers accused the government in a lawsuit of denying them loans in favor of whites.
The Senate approved the measure Friday afternoon by unanimous consent. It includes an extension of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
Republicans agreed to pass the measure after Democrats found offsets to pay for it.
A Senate Democratic aide said the cost of the measure will be covered by surplus funds in the Women, Infants and Children nutritional assistance program, reducing overpayment of unemployment benefits and extension of customs user fees.
The House must approve the bill before it goes to President Obama for a signature. The House, which Democrats will control for a few more weeks, is expected to pass it easily.
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 .”
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Denying Americans Their Own Energy
By Alan Caruba
What kind of government deliberately denies its citizens access to the energy they need to live, to conduct business, to transport goods, to travel, and to just turn on the lights? Answer: The United States of America.
In a letter to members of the G-20, the finance ministers and central bankers of leading industrial nations, President Obama said, “We should make sustained effort to carry through with our groundbreaking Pittsburgh commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”
The result of such action would give international energy companies in other nations a large competitive advantage while penalizing U.S. oil and natural gas companies.
As Dr. Richard Swier noted recently, “In the U.S., support for the oil and gas industry is largely about investment depreciation rules which are available to many industries.” Energy companies routinely put huge amounts of money at risk to explore, discover, and extract the so-called fossil fuels. Take away the subsidies and the cost of all energy use in the U.S. goes up.
Meanwhile, CNN Money reported on November 12 that “President Obama lifted his moratorium on deepwater oil drilling nearly a month ago, but the government still hasn't issued any new permits in the Gulf of Mexico. And most analysts say permits will be slow in coming through 2011.” (emphasis added)
This is great news for Saudi Arabia and bad news for Americans who think we should be accessing our own vast oil reserves. This failure to revive the oil drilling industry in the Gulf comes at a time when the price of a barrel of oil is rising while leaving thousands of oil industry workers in the Gulf States out of work.
A day earlier in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal it was revealed that while “President Obama continues to advertise the $814 billion stimulus and its green energy subsidy programs in particular as unqualified successes” an eight-page memo from his chief economic advisor, Larry Summers, environment and energy “czar”, Carol Browner, and policy aide, Ron Klain reveals that a $6 billion Department of Energy guarantee of loans and other disbursements was being resisted by the House budget office (OMB) and Treasury had found severe problems with “the economy integrity of government support for renewables.” (emphasis added)
Renewables is a code word for wind and solar energy projects. Loan guarantees, block grants, and government mandates often benefit large administration supporters such as General Electric and other political donors engaged in such projects.
One such project in Oregon would tap taxpayers for $1.2 billion while GE and Caithness Energy LLC would only put in about 11% of the project cost. It is corporate welfare that leaves the public with one of the two worst ways of generating electricity, as opposed to coal-fired and nuclear plants. Even hydroelectric power (generated by dams) is more reliable and less costly.
Back in October, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved a 50-megawatt Silver State Solar Project for Clark County, Nevada and three large solar power projects in California, all to be sited on federal land. This is not exactly what conservationists had in mind when such land was set aside. It diverts and wastes billions.
While all this is going on, the Environmental Protection Agency is still demanding that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced, the best known of which is carbon dioxide. They are referred to as “heat-trapping” gas and identified as the source of “global warming.” Only there is NO global warming and hasn't been for a decade as the Earth's overall temperatures have slid into a perfectly natural cooling cycle.
Thanks to Climategate, we now know that “global warming” was a complete fiction put forth by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The question no one at EPA wants to answer is this: if greenhouse gases trap heat, why don't they do it in the winter? If they are so powerful that they can trap heat, how come it gets cold as winter arrives in either the northern or southern hemispheres? Carbon dioxide does not trap heat, but more CO2 would in fact increase crop yields and aid forest and jungle growth worldwide.
According to CNSnews.com, “Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100 according to the EPA's analysis.” In plain terms, no reduction whatever and none needed!
Greenhouse gas restrictions are nothing less than a criminal act against the citizens of the United States. It is utterly baseless, a fraud no less than “global warming.”
There are many other examples of what the government, under the present and preceding administrations going back to Jimmy Carter's, have been doing to choke off the acquisition of American's vast reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil.
This isn't a energy policy. It's a suicide pact to drive up the cost of energy for all Americans, diminishing our competitiveness, and making our lives harsher.
© Alan Caruba, 2010Leo Motors Gets Order to Develop Agricultural Machinery
HANAM CITY, South Korea--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Leo Motors entered into an agreement with Tong Yang Mulsan Co., Ltd., one of the largest agricultural machinery companies in Korea, to develop electric tractors using the body and chassis from Tong Yang's internal combustion engine ( ICE ) tractors. Leo will develop the electric tractor using its proprietary electric power train including an electric motor, controller, battery management system ( BMS ), and power pack, and exploiting its unique electric car packaging technology. When the development is successful, Leo will have the opportunity to market its power trains to Tong Yang.
About Leo Motors
LEO MOTORS is a US public company based outside of Seoul, Korea, engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of Electric Vehicle ( EV ) power trains and components. Leo has developed many original EV power trains and has converted many models of existing internal combustion engine ( ICE ) vehicles into EVs, including scooters, motorcycles, highway speed sedans, buses and trucks. Leo Motors has also developed Zinc Air Fuel Cell Generator (ZAFCG) which will free EV's from range limitation with zero emissions.
Forward-Looking Statement
This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In addition to statements which explicitly describe such risks and uncertainties, readers are urged to consider statements labeled with the terms “believes,” “belief,” “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “will,” or “plans” to be uncertain and forward looking. The forward-looking statements contained herein are also subject generally to other risks and uncertainties that are described from time to time in the company's reports and registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Princeton Research, Inc.
Mike King, 702-650-3000
Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/press-releases/10/11/b630720/leo-motors-gets-order-to-develop-agricultural-machinery#ixzz15zgPiA3D
EPA considers SW Colo creek polluted by historical mining
GLADSTONE, Colo. (AP) — Portions of upper Cement Creek that feeds into the Animas River in southwestern Colorado are being considered for listing as a Superfund site.
Heavy metals gushing from abandoned mines, some which operated in the late 1800s to early 1900s in the Gladstone area, are believed to be polluting the creek.
Site assessment manager for the EPA in Denver Sabrina Forrest told the Durango Herald that they hope to decide by February whether the area qualifies for Superfund cleanup.
EPA officials are looking at a cluster of mines as the potential source of contamination that include the American Tunnel, Gold King Number 7 level, the Mogul and Grand Mogul, and the Red and Bonita mines.Idaho lawmakers blast EPA proposal
Cleanup plan too costly, Idaho delegation says
Idaho's congressional delegation is lambasting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to clean up historic mining waste in the Coeur d'Alene River's headwaters.
“Bloated” was how delegation members described the $1.3 billion plan with a list of projects that could take up to 100 years to complete.
The EPA's proposal would leave a “Superfund” stigma hanging over Idaho's Silver Valley for the next three generations, tainting the local tourism industry and potentially harming the region's remaining silver mines, they said.
“EPA proposes a massive undertaking on a scale that is hardly imaginable, possibly without precedent, and with no realistic way to pay for it,” said U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.
The criticism was levied in a joint statement also issued by U.S. Sen. Jim Risch and Reps. Walt Minnick and Mike Simpson.
Simpson is a ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment, which funds the EPA.
He predicted that Congress would reject the current plan and urged the EPA to build consensus in North Idaho around “a workable path forward.”
Regional EPA officials, meanwhile, said the 2,200-page plan is a realistic look at the decades of work needed to make the Upper Coeur d'Alene Basin safe for people and wildlife.
More than 300 old mine sites – an average of one per square mile – continue to leach lead, arsenic and other heavy metals into the Coeur d'Alene River's headwaters.
Stretches of some tributaries are too toxic to support fish. During flooding, the metals wash downstream into Lake Coeur d'Alene.
Polluted sediments along the beaches and floodplains also pose risks to people and wildlife, according to the EPA.
“We believe it's appropriate for EPA to come up with a blueprint for cleanup in the upper basin so the community and EPA understand the extent of the work,” Anne Daily, an EPA program manager, said in an earlier interview. “It helps us wisely spend the mo? ney on projects that will have the most benefit and limit the use of taxpayer money.”
Part of the cleanup money would come from the $447 million Asarco trust fund, created to pay for the mining company's environmental liabilities in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. At spending levels of $25 million per year, the cleanup work is expected to generate 425 new jobs in the Silver Valley.
But the plan faced hostile crowds at public hearings in the Silver Valley last summer. Local residents and politicians said it was too big and too costly.
Hecla Mining Co., which operates the Lucky Friday Mine in Mullan, Idaho, also opposes it. Hecla is the last major company that hasn't settled its historic pollution claims with the federal government. In earlier litigation, a federal judge ruled that Hecla was responsible for 31 percent of the historic mine tailings dumped in the Coeur d'Alene Basin.
The company employs about 350 workers at the Lucky Friday Mine.
A public comment period on the proposal ended Tuesday. EPA officials said they will review the comments and respond in writing to the issues raised.
Further progress on permitting process for US power plant projects Amargosa and Palen
By signing the Record of Decision, US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar approved the right of way grant for the Solar Millennium Group's solar power plant facility in Nevada's Amargosa Valley on Monday. This approval marks an important pre-condition for the successful completion of the permitting process for the construction of two parabolic trough power plants as scheduled. Together, the two power plants will have a total capacity of approximately 500 megawatts (MW). Part of the electricity generated there will be supplied to Las Vegas, which is some 150 kilometers away. The planned thermal storage facilities will enable the two plants to supply the region with electricity even after the sun has set.
Based on the approval by the US Secretary of the Interior, the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has granted Solar Millennium LLC, Oakland, the American project development unit within the Solar Millennium Group, the right of way for public land at the Amargosa location. Due to the proximity to the Amargosa River, Solar Millennium must additionally seek approval with regards to the Water Clean Act from other U.S. authorities to obtain the final construction approval.
In announcing the Record of Decision, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said," This solar facility is yet another critical component in the Department's growing renewable energy portfolio as we work to create strengthen our nation's energy security. Our commitment to the development of clean, renewable energy is creating new jobs that will aid in our economic recovery, protect our environment and transform the way our nation gets our energy."
In California another project location has taken an important hurdle in the approval process, as well. Last Friday, the responsible committee of the California Energy Commission (CEC) had recommended granting Solar Millennium LLC approval for the construction and operation of two solar-thermal power plants with a total capacity of about 500 MW at the Palen location in California. In its recommendation the committee had established that the planned power plants complied with the applicable laws, regulations and requirements, as was also the case with the Blythe project. The CEC will probably make its final decision on the construction permit after the expiry of a public comment period in mid-December.
Oliver Blamberger, CFO of Solar Millennium AG, said the company is pleased with the progress: "The two locations in Blythe and the Amargosa valley alone suffice to fill our order books for the years to come and make Solar Millennium the leading supplier of parabolic trough power plants." Regarding the financing of the two power plants in Nevada, Blamberger added, "In line with the financing structure of Blythe 1 and 2, an equity ratio of 20 to 30 percent is also planned for the Amargosa power plants. As with Blythe, we have already applied for the respective loan guarantees with the US Department of Energy in order to secure the debt capital."
Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America, illustrates the significance of the solar power plants for the economy in Nevada. "The construction of these two plants is not only another important milestone on the path towards sustainably converting our U.S. energy supply, but it also makes a very important contribution to reviving the local economy in Nevada. Solar Millennium expects to create more than 1,300 jobs at the Amargosa Valley location during construction, while the two power plants will provide more than 180 permanent operations and maintenance jobs once completed.
With a generating capacity of approximately 500 MW and thermal storage volume for 4.5 hours per plant, the two power plants will produce enough energy to power up 150,000 America homes on a reliable basis. In 2009, the company had already signed memorandum of understanding on a potential power purchase agreement with the utility Nevada Energy.
Josef Eichhammer, President of Solar Trust of America and CEO of Solar Millennium LLC remarks: "US politicians have it high on their agenda that California and Nevada take a leading position in utilizing the abundant solar resource for electricity generation and building up a solar industry and therefore we are very happy today to make a contribution with our planned innovative power plants to realize such objectives. Our decision to plan a power plant with dry cooling also helps to accelerate the approval process, as we need 90% less water to cool the steam cycle. We will now intensify our negotiations with utilities regarding the power purchase agreements as well as our engagement with the permitting authorities for the two plants, so we will be able to commence construction for both projects by the end of 2011."Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wind White Wash
The greenies continually tell us that green is the way to go. Recently Jim Madden submitted a rebuttal to the Cape Vincent's Wind Committee's Economics Report. Below I have a story about a coordinated attempt by the AWEA, DOE & NREL to discredit another report.
Jefferson's leaning Left has a story today in it he mentions a report about green jobs published by Researchers at King Juan Carlos University this report concludes that every "green" job created by the wind industry eliminated 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy. apparently this report was disturbing to certain entities in the renewable energy sector ,so much so that they actively set out to discredit it .Below are a series of emails between the Obama administration's, Department of Energy( DOE), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the American Wind Energy Association( AWEA )these emails show a desperate attempt to discredit the King Juan Carlos University report.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Department of Energy is working hard using your tax dollars to promote wind energy. The latest thing I found was the report I published yesterday , from the NREL the DOE's research group titled Large Scale Offshore Wind Power in The United States.
The DOE also has a website Wind & Water Power Program
The Critical Objective ~
The program's critical objectives for enabling widespread offshore wind power deployment are to reduce the cost of energy generated by offshore wind turbines, and to reduce the timeline for deploying offshore wind.
How much money does it cost to produce & reduce the cost of wind power?
Our tax dollars are being thrown at this industry to get it established. Now more money is being thrown into the never ending wind industry abyss because we must make this inefficient unreliable power source more cost efficient, but by the time we get to this point we will never be able to recoup the money that was spent to arrive there, we will be at a point of diminishing return.
I am not surprised by this thinking. After all it is not their money that they are throwing into the abyss.
For your reading pleasure I have provided some emails in the scrbd format they are between people from the DOE, NREL, AWEA, all scrambling doing damage control discussing how to discredit a Spanish wind study that says that wind power destroys jobs and that the jobs that wind claims to create are based on artificial data.
Click the links below to read the FOIA request and the emails:
“Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show how the Obama administration's Department of Energy is using the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) — the lobbying arm of “Big Wind” in the U.S. — to coordinate political responses with two strongly ideological activist groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the George Soros funded Center for American Progress (CAP).”
The emails expose active coordination between the Obama administration, the DoE and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the AWEA . These emails show the Obama DoE using the AWEA as a conduit to both the CAP and the UCS, and taking steps to ensure that aspects of its coordination were not committed to paper (or email) because the emails might be revealed later.”
Iron Mountain Mine Institute
supergene copper/gold prospect
In ore deposit geology , supergene processes or enrichment occur relatively near the surface. Supergene processes include the predominance of meteoric water circulation with concomitant oxidation and chemical weathering . The descending meteoric waters oxidize the primary ( hypogene ) sulfide ore minerals and redistribute the metallic ore elements. Supergene enrichment occurs at the base of the oxidized portion of an ore deposit. Metals that have been leached from the oxidized ore are carried downward by percolating groundwater, and react with hypogene sulfides at the supergene-hypogene boundary. The reaction produces secondary sulfides with metal contents higher than those of the primary ore. This is particularly noted in copper ore deposits where the copper sulfide minerals chalcocite , covellite , digenite , and djurleite are deposited by the descending surface waters.
1000 tons per hour of wasted capacity since 1980
BRICK FLAT PIT GENERAL MINING PLAN
IRON MOUNTAIN MINES. United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.; T.W. Arman; and Aventis Cropscience USA Inc., Civ. No. S-91-0768 DFL/JFM (E.D. Ca., Dec. 8, 2000); and State of California v. Iron Mountain, et al., Civ. No. C-91-1167 DFL/JFM (consolidated). [CERCLA] In one file or in smaller files (each approx. 600KB): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Southwest DARRP web site.]
LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
January 2009Toward a Reformed State Agency
A new, ideal system should include the following characteristics:
1. A unified state water quality agency. Completely distinct
regional boards may have been appropriate in past decades,
but current common problems – urban stormwater, for
example, or impairments caused by the same contaminants –
call for a more centralized regulatory approach unified by a
common vision and common processes. A unified state
agency can better identify key problems and priorities in the
state and align resources to address those problems.
Efficiencies gained by a stronger bond between the state and
regions will lead to clean water outcomes faster and cheaper.
2. Local input. The need for local input on water quality
objectives remains important, as water bodies are unique,
with their own problems and solutions. Water quality
objectives should continue to be set at the regional level, with
vigorous debate and discussion among local stakeholders,
while still subject to state oversight.
3. A focus on accountability and outcomes. The public, and
policy-makers, have a right to clearer information from the
boards as to the state of the state’s waters, and to which
programs are effective – and which are not. Additionally, the
boards must re-focus their mission, from ensuring that
dischargers are abiding by their permits to this fundamental
question: Are the state’s programs protecting and improving
water quality?
4. Integrated science, accessible data. As water pollution
problems increase in complexity, there is a need for a stronger
scientific presence within board programs. The state board
needs scientific advisors to help guide and coordinate
research and utilize that research in regulation. In addition,
the boards’ dearth of water quality data must be rectified, and
it can be: There are numerous federal, state and local
agencies, as well as other groups, collecting information. The
state must pull that information into an integrated system
that allows the boards and others to access and use the
information that already has been gathered.STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
WATER QUALITY
ENFORCEMENT POLICY
Effective May 20, 2010
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYD. Environmental Justice
The Water Boards shall promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes within
their jurisdictions in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and
income levels, including minority and low-income populations in the state.
Specifically, the Water Boards shall pursue enforcement that is consistent with the goals
identified in Cal-EPA’s Intra-Agency Environmental Justice Strategy, August 2004
(http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/Documents/2004/Strategy/Final.pdf) as follows:
· Ensure meaningful public participation in enforcement matters;
· Integrate environmental justice considerations into the enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies;
· Improve data collection and availability of violation and enforcement information for
communities of color and low-income populations; and,
· Ensure effective cross-media coordination and accountability in addressing
environmental justice issues.
E. Facilities Serving Small Communities
The State Water Board has a comprehensive strategy for facilities serving small and/or
disadvantaged communities that extends beyond enforcement and will revise that strategy as
necessary to address the unique compliance challenges faced by these communities (see State
Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2008-0048). Consistent with this strategy,
reference in this Section E. to small communities is intended to denote both small and
disadvantaged small communities.Class I priority violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Significant measured or calculated violations with lasting effects on water quality
objectives or criteria in the receiving waters;
b. Violations that result in significant lasting impacts to existing beneficial uses of
waters of the State;
c. Violations that result in significant harm to, or the destruction of, fish or wildlife;
d. Violations that present an imminent danger to public health;
e. Unauthorized discharges that pose a significant threat to water quality;
f. Falsification of information submitted to the Water Boards or intentional withholding
of information required by applicable laws, regulations, or enforceable orders;
g. Violation of a prior enforcement action-- such as a cleanup and abatement order or
cease and desist order--that results in an unauthorized discharge of waste or
pollutants to water of the State; andh. Knowing and willful failure to comply with monitoring requirements as required by
applicable laws, regulations, or enforceable orders because of knowledge that
monitoring results will reveal violations.2. Class II Violations
Class II violations are those violations that pose a moderate, indirect, or cumulative threat to
water quality and, therefore, have the potential to cause detrimental impacts on human health
and the environment. Negligent or inadvertent noncompliance with water quality regulations
that has the potential for causing or allowing the continuation of an unauthorized discharge or
obscuring past violations is also a class II violation.
Class II violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Unauthorized discharges that pose a moderate or cumulative threat to water quality;
b. Violations of acute or chronic toxicity requirements where the discharge may
adversely affect fish or wildlife;
c. Violations that present a substantial threat to public health;
d. Negligent or inadvertent failure to substantially comply with monitoring requirements
as required by applicable laws, regulations, or enforceable orders, such as not taking
all the samples required;
e. Negligent or inadvertent failure to submit information as required by applicable laws,
regulations, or an enforceable order where that information is necessary to confirm
past compliance or to prevent or curtail an unauthorized discharge;
f. Violations of compliance schedule dates (e.g., schedule dates for starting
construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance) by 30 days or
more from the compliance date specified in an enforceable order;
g. Failure to pay fees, penalties, or liabilities within 120 days of the due date, unless the
discharger has pending a timely petition pursuant to California Water Code section
13320 for review of the fee, penalty, or liability, or a timely request for an alternative
payment schedule, filed with the Regional Water Board;
h. Violations of prior enforcement actions that do not result in an unauthorized
discharge of waste or pollutants to waters of the State;
i. Significant measured or calculated violations of water quality objectives or
promulgated water quality criteria in the receiving waters; and
j. Violations that result in significant demonstrated impacts on existing beneficial uses
of waters of the State.3. Class III Violations
Class III violations are those violations that pose only a minor threat to water quality and
have little or no known potential for causing a detrimental impact on human health and the
environment. Class III violations include statutorily required liability for late reporting when
such late filings do not result in causing an unauthorized discharge or allowing one to
continue. Class III violations should only include violations by dischargers who are first time
or infrequent violators and are not part of a pattern of chronic violations.
Class III violations are all violations that are not class I priority or class II violations. Those
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Unauthorized discharges that pose a low threat to water quality;
b. Negligent or inadvertent late submission of information required by applicable laws,
regulations, or enforceable orders;
c. Failure to pay fees, penalties, or liabilities within 30 days of the due date, unless the
discharger has pending a timely petition pursuant to California Water Code section
13320 for review of the fee, penalty or liability; or a timely request for an alternative
payment schedule, filed with the Regional Water Board;
d. Any “minor violation” as determined pursuant to California Water Code section 13399
et seq. (see Appendix A. C.1a);
e. Negligent or inadvertent failure to comply with monitoring requirements when
conducting monitoring as required by applicable laws, regulations, or enforceable
orders, such as using an incorrect testing method;
f. Less significant (as compared to class II violations) measured or calculated violations
of water quality objectives or promulgated water quality criteria in the receiving
waters; and
g. Violations that result in less significant (as compared to class II violations)
demonstrated impacts to existing beneficial uses of waters of the State.V.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER
REGULATORY AGENCIES
A. Hazardous Waste Facilities
At hazardous waste facilities where the Regional Water Board is the lead agency for corrective
action oversight, the Regional Water Board shall consult with Department of Toxics Substance
Control (DTSC) to ensure, among other things, that corrective action is at least equivalent to the
requirements of the Federal Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA).California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Katherine Hart, Chair
415 Knollcrest Drive, Suite 100, Redding, California 96002
(530) 224-4845 �� Fax (530) 224-4857
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WRITTEN COMMENTS DUE BY 5:00 P.M., APRIL 14, 2010
Notice is hereby given that on March 31, 2010, a proposed Settlement Agreement in the bankruptcy matter, In re Lyondell Chemical Company, et al., Jointly Administered Bankruptcy Case No. 09-10023 (REG), was lodged with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board or Board) has been deemed to have filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings of debtor Lyondell Chemical Company and 93 of its affiliates (collectively “Lyondell”). In the bankruptcy proceeding, the Board sought enforcement of environmental obligations at the Bully Hill and Rising Star Mine Sites, the Afterthought Mine, and the Kingsburg Winery. The proposed Settlement Agreement resolves the Central Valley Water Board’s claims against Lyondell.
Lyondell currently owns the Bully Hill and Rising Star Mine Sites, which are located in Shasta County. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Lyondell will place the Bully Hill and Rising Star Mine Sites into an environmental custodial trust, which will hold title to the properties. $8,000,000 will be allocated to the environmental custodial trust, which will be dedicated to remediating the Bully Hill and Rising Star Mine Sites. Board staff will have oversight of the budget of the environmental custodial trust. The Board will release a financial assurances mechanism of $421,000 within thirty days of when Lyondell places the properties and remediation funds into the environmental custodial trust.
The Kingsburg Winery, in Fresno County, and the Afterthought Mine, in Shasta County, (hereafter referred to as the “Liquidated Sites”) are not sites that Lyondell currently owns, but are sites where Lyondell has incurred environmental obligations because of its prior involvement. The subsidiaries of Lyondell that were associated with the Liquidated Sites are to be dissolved during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings. To resolve liability at the Liquidated Sites, the Central Valley Water Board will receive an Allowed General Unsecured Claim of $500,000 against Millennium Holdings, LLC and an Allowed General Unsecured Claim of $500,000 against Millennium Petrochemicals, Inc. Cash received from these two claims will be deposited into the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account, and will be used to remediate the Liquidated Sites.
Written comments on the proposed Settlement Agreement must be received by 5:00 p.m. on April 14, 2010. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to: pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. Please refer to In re Lyondell Chemical Company, et al., D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-2132/3. After the public comment period closes, the U.S. Department of Justice will transmit copies of comments received to the Central Valley Water Board for consideration.
The Settlement Agreement may be examined at the Central Valley Water Board’s Redding office, 415 Knollcrest Drive, Suite 100, in Redding. During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may also be examined at the following web site, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/press_room/announcements/. For additional information, please contact Phil Woodward at (213) 576-6607 or pwoodward@waterboards.ca.gov.
Date of Notice: April 1, 2010MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING
Thursday, September 16, 2010, 10:00 a.m.
City of La Quinta
City Council Chambers
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253CLOSED SESSION
14. At any time during the regular session, the Board may adjourn to meet in closed
session to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or
dismissal of a public employee [Authority: Government Code Section 11126(a)];
to consider evidence received in an adjudicatory hearing and deliberate on a
decision to be reached based on that evidence [Authority: Government Code
Section 11126(c)(3)]; to discuss significant exposure to litigation [Authority:
Government Code Section 11126(e)(2)(B)(i)]; to discuss whether to initiate
litigation [Authority: Government Code Section 11126(e)(2)(C)(i)]; or to discuss
initiated litigation [Authority: Government Code Section 11126(e)]. Discussion of
litigation is within the attorney-client privilege and may be held in closed session
[Authority: Government Code Section 11126(e)(2)].
a. EXECUTIVE OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONDELISTING FROM KESWICK TO COTTONWOOD SINCE MAY 2009
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. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al., (EDCal No. S-91-0768 DFL/JFM)ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT BOARD MEETING: Thursday, November 18,
2010, 10:00 a.m. in La Quinta.
Phil Woodward is Senior Engineering Geologist with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. He holds a B.A. in Aquatic Biology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an M.S. in Geology, from San Jose State University, as well as Professional Geologist, Certified Engineering Geologist, Certified Hydrogeologist Licenses. He has been employed by the Regional Board in Redding for the past 23 years, and is responsible for regulatory oversight for the cleanup of abandoned mine. Mr. Woodward is the Regional Board project manager for three Federal Superfund sites, including Iron Mountain Mine.
95/11/04 |
Rick Sugarek - Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9 |
Phil Woodward Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9 |
Memo: Comments on Regional Bd proposed changes to standards for Sacramento River (Privileged, FOIA ex 5) |
1166 |
1652-03305 |
019 |
2462 |
95/11/04 |
Rick Sugarek - Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9 |
Phil Woodward Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9 |
Memo: Comments re Stauffer studies to support request to modify water quality objectives for Cu, Zn & cadmium in Upper Sacto (Privileged, FOIA ex 5) |
1165 |
1652-03303 |
019 |
2460 |
"THE WATERBOARDING OF TED ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINE"
PHIL WOODWARD IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
JIM PEDRI IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
RICK SUGAREK IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
DENNIS HEIMAN IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - REDNECK ENVIRONMENTALIST
(WE'LL TAKE HER WORD FOR IT.)
JOHN LYONS, ESQ. IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
THE WATERBOARD IS BANISHED - GUILTY OF LEACHING - THE CAUSE OF CONTAMINATION AT IMMI
FERTILIZE THE EARTH - ABOLISH THE WATERBOARD - INITIATE CAFA ANTITRUST ACTION
PURGE IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES - DIVISION OF INSIDIOUS BUREACRACY
ANTITERROR COUNTERMEASURES - CULTURAL DEVOLUTION OF ESTABLISHED BELIEFS
OUTLAWRY
CH2M HILL
Bob Chapman CH2M HILL
Joe Patten CH2M HILL
Ken Iceman CH2M HILL
Fritz Carlson CH2M HILL
Sergei Zelenkov CH2M HILL
Bill Bluck CH2M HILL
Ray Prettyman CH2M HILL
Mike Smith CH2M HILL
CVRWQCB
Phil Woodward CVRWQCB
Dennis Heiman CVRWQCB
Jim Pedri CVRWQCB
Jim Rohrbach CVRWQCB
EPA
Rick Sugarek EPA
Tom Mix EPA
Ron Hill EPA
Keith Takata EPA
Bureau of Reclamation
Lester Kaufman - Bureau of Reclamation
Kirk Nordstrom U.S.G.S.
Dennis Wilson Dept. of Fish and Game
Mark Galloway – Dept. of Health Services
Also known as transgenic salmon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel began hearings in Washington on Sunday, on America's first genetically engineered food animal: the Atlantic salmon. This fish incorporates DNA from the ocean pout and the Chinook salmon to make it grow twice as fast as its wild relatives.
Instead of 3 years, the genetically modified fish reaches maturity in 18 months!
Aquaculture that produces tilapia and shrimp is already created to meet the demand for seafood, but farming genetically modified fish is a whole different matter.
The controversy? With drastically declining wild fish stocks becoming a serious concern, proponents argue that farming a fast-growing genetically modified fish is the safest and most economical way to meet consumers' insatiable demand for salmon, which is reported to be a heart healthy food because of the essential omega-3 fatty acids.
Proponents also insist that there's no danger in eating genetically modified food as they insist that raising them strictly in tanks will eliminate the risk of loosing a few into the wild where they would breed with wild salmon and "contaminate" the gene pool.
AquaBounty, the Boston-based company that designed the fish, told the FDA that the fish will be grown only in indoor tanks in inland areas, and Ohio has already been selected by the company as the place to "grow" these genetically modified fish.
However, opponents to such endeavors raise both health and environmental concerns.
Just as agribusiness exclusively sells genetically modified seeds, the company intends to sell eggs to growers in the U.S. as well as elsewhere. There's the whole ethical issue of one company holding the patented rights to create, own, and sell eggs to fish farmers. Won't this mean that all the ills of agribusiness will enter the realm of aquaculture?
The FDA briefing paper says it found that at least 95% of the eggs produced sterile fish and all of the eggs were female. Since no containment system is foolproof, it means that there's no guarantee that the few fish that manage to escape into the wild won't begin breeding with wild salmon or start decimating native species of wildlife.
Consumers who buy conventional produce without the organic certification, who buy processed foodstuff made from conventionally grown produce already eat genetically modified corn and soybeans; does this then follow that genetically modified fish will some day dominate the seafood market here in the U.S. and other nations?
One environmental concern is that the saltwater used to farm the salmon, when released in order to clean out the tanks, will wreck havoc in Ohio's freshwater streams and lakes. Regulators will have to decide whether the environmental cost and risk are acceptable, and to whom.
According to Bob Calala, president of the Ohio Aquaculture Association, indoor aquaculture is the wave of the future in Ohio. There is hope that a lack of demand from consumers who value seafood that isn't genetically modified might deter such a wave. Only time will tell the health and environmental consequences of a grand scale aquaculture of what some would call franken-fish, but by then, who knows whether or not it would be too late.
Water Surge
Hydropower, once shunned because of environmental concerns, is making a comeback
By STEPHANIE SIMON
LEADVILLE, Colo.—The giant pipes wheeze and rumble, the whoosh of water coursing through them as noisy as a freeway. The Mount Elbert hydropower plant high in the Rocky Mountains isn't much to look at—or listen to. But to true believers, it's a road map to a greener future.
Hydropower, shunned just a few years ago as an environmental scourge, is experiencing a remarkable resurgence in the U.S. Dams are still viewed warily; in fact, Congress is considering dismantling four hydroelectric dams blamed for depleting salmon in the Klamath River basin in southern Oregon and northern California.
But engineers and entrepreneurs are pressing an alternative view of hydropower that doesn't involve new dams. They argue that plenty of efficient, economical energy can be wrung from other water resources, including ocean waves, free-flowing rivers, irrigation ditches—even the effluent discharged from wastewater treatment facilities.
There's a surge of interest, too, in adding small power plants to dams built years ago for flood control or navigation—as well as in turning reservoirs into battery packs of sorts, releasing energy when the grid needs it most.
Globally, hydropower provides 16% of electricity, slightly more than nuclear power and closing in on natural gas, according to the London-based International Hydropower Association.
In the U.S., by contrast, hydropower now provides about 7% of electricity generation. All other renewable sources combined account for about 3%.
Even without building large dams, expanding efforts to draw power from water could add 40,000 megawatts to the grid by 2025, says the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit research firm in Palo Alto, Calif. That's the equivalent of putting at least two dozen new nuclear power plants online.
Pouring It On
Such estimates are stirring action. The U.S. Department of Energy spent nothing on hydropower research as recently as 2007 but allocated $50 million this year. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued 50 preliminary permits for small hydro projects last year, up from 15 in 2007. At least two dozen states have mandated that utilities draw more power from renewable sources—and many include small hydropower as an option, along with wind and solar. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter recently announced an agreement between his state and the federal government that will streamline the permitting process for developing small hydropower projects in Colorado.
The Department of Energy estimates a new hydro project in 2016 would generate power at a cost of $120 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, the cost per megawatt-hour would be $150 at a wind farm going online that year and nearly $400 at a photovoltaic solar array. (Those figures don't take into account various tax incentives meant to offset the cost of renewable energy, especially wind and solar.)
Hydro also has technical advantages over other renewables. Daily water flow in many areas is far more predictable than wind or sunshine. It's relatively easy to store the energy pent up in water so it can be released when the grid needs it most. And certain types of hydro plants can rev up from low power to full capacity within seconds.
"There remains tremendous untapped potential in North America," says Don Erpenbeck, a vice president at MWH, a global hydropower construction and engineering firm in Broomfield, Colo. "After decades of delay, we are starting to realize that potential."
But Mr. Erpenbeck adds that years-long waits for federal permits and high capital costs make hydropower a tough sell to some utilities and investors. Maximizing water energy in the U.S., he says, "is going to take some guts."
Countries such as Brazil and China remain committed to large hydroelectric dams and are forging ahead with big projects. Yet they are also looking at smaller solutions favored by environmentalists. The International Hydropower Association estimates that North America has developed nearly 70% of its available hydropower resources and Europe 75%. But the group sees huge potential in South America, Asia and especially Africa, where just 7% of resources have been developed.
Dam Smart
In the U.S., one strategy gaining popularity is to add power plants to some of the 80,000 existing dams that don't have hydroelectric capacity. Technological advances like turbines that are gentler on fish and oxygen-injection systems that help balance aquatic ecosystems have won favor even among some environmental groups.
In one such project, American Municipal Power Inc. is spending $2 billion to add power plants to three dams on the Ohio River and invest in additional hydropower elsewhere.
The utility's CEO, Marc Gerken, says the new hydropower will cost more initially than coal or natural gas. But after the construction costs are paid off in 30 years, the utility will enjoy cheap power for several decades because the fuel—the rushing river—is essentially free and the plant is designed to run without much maintenance for 60 or 70 years. AMP, based in Columbus, Ohio, is a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by municipal utilities in the six states the company serves.
Other technologies are more speculative. A much-ballyhooed experiment that involved suspending a turbine from a barge in the Mississippi River didn't prove to be worth expanding. The turbine is generating power, but Hydro Green Energy LLC, the Houston-based start-up that developed the device, says it has moved on to more promising ventures. "It's still a power-producing, money-making device," but the economics don't support expansion, says Vice President Mark Stover.
Several companies are experimenting with "low-head" turbines that can pull energy from relatively small volumes of water dropping as little as five feet over natural or man-made falls. One such project, launched by Natel Energy Inc. of Alameda, Calif., uses low-head technology to extract energy from an Arizona irrigation canal.
Federal scientists say some of these approaches look promising but need more study. "With these new technologies, nobody knows what their environmental impacts might be," says Doug Hall, who manages the water-energy program at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.
Pump Action
A less-experimental technology, dating back more than a century, is also gaining currency as a means to store energy and back up the grid: pumped storage, the system used by the Mount Elbert hydro plant outside Denver.
The plant, sitting on the jewel-like Twin Lakes and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, plays a key role in keeping lights on and air conditioners humming across the West.
At night, when demand on the power grid is low, the Mount Elbert plant sucks water from the lakes, sometimes using wind power to pump that water up into a reservoir above the plant. The reservoir acts as a liquid battery—a huge pool of potential energy.
As the day warms up and the grid shows signs of strain, workers begin to release the water down a 470-foot drop, through devices that turn the pent-up energy into usable electricity. The water eventually pours back into the lakes, where it can be recycled into power again the next evening.
Pumped storage is quite popular abroad; China has 2,200 projects under construction, and India and Ukraine aren't far behind. An analysis by MWH shows that countries as varied as Romania, Thailand, Switzerland, South Africa and Italy are also moving heavily into pumped-storage construction. The U.S. has lagged, but federal authorities saw a surge in permit applications in 2008 and again so far this year.
"No new dams are being built," says Dave Sabo, a senior adviser with the Bureau of Reclamation. But just about every other approach to hydropower, he says, is being studied and tested intensively. Says Mr. Sabo, "All this stuff is in play right now—pretty heavily."
Ms. Simon is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Dallas bureau. She can be reached at stephanie.simon@wsj.com .
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page R3
Report: Electric Grid R&D Must Parallel Expansion of Renewable Power
By JENNY MANDEL of Greenwire
Published: November 16, 2010
The Energy Department should expand its research on energy storage, long-distance electricity transmission and short-term weather forecasting in order to support the growing use of renewable energy, the American Physical Society says in a report released today.
Research and development is needed to prepare the electric grid for the coming onslaught of new solar and wind power, in much the way farmers must prepare the ground before sowing a crop, said Kathryn Clay, vice president of research and technology policy with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and a member of the committee that wrote the report, at a press event.
"This is actually taking it a step higher in terms of the technical sophistication of the national grid," Clay said, contrasting the proposed work with calls by other groups to build new transmission lines.
The American Physical Society (APS) said the intermittency of wind and solar supplies, the location of prime wind and solar sites far from population centers on the East and West coasts, and the fragmentation of the national energy grid present challenges to integrating renewable energy.
Those challenges will become increasingly significant as more states implement renewable portfolio standards, the report says, as 30 states and the District of Columbia have already done.
Jim Misewich, a co-chairman of the report committee and associate lab director for basic science at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory, said many of the state standards are aimed at providing 20 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. Integrating that degree of renewable power would be a challenge under current conditions, he said, which effectively sets a 10-year time frame to address the weaknesses.
While experts do not know the precise load of renewables that the grid can handle, Clay said, "We don't want to run that experiment" to see when it starts to break down.
The report calls for a series of federal actions to address the challenges.
For energy storage, DOE should increase its electrochemical research and re-examine the technology options for batteries in the context of large-scale use, it said. Misewich stressed the value of reconsidering approaches that were discarded during the 1980s and 1990s, when program managers had different applications in mind, in light of changing needs.
On long-distance transmission, APS urged DOE to extend its work on high-temperature superconductivity and increase R&D on power electronics that can control power flows over split-second time periods.
To make wind and solar forecasting more useful to utilities, it called for additional research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service and National Center for Atmospheric Research, as well as private companies, to improve the accuracy of reports hours to days in advance. That would reduce the need for fossil fuel standby power, reducing cost and improving the environmental performance of power providers.
Misewich and Clay said regulatory reforms by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corp. could help by clarifying how utilities can pay for energy storage improvements.
Clay said some of the R&D work suggested by APS is already before Congress in some form, while much of it is new. She said the panel decided against estimating the cost of the recommended work.
Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com .
NERSC supercomputing center breaks the petaflops barrier
November 16, 2010
BERKELEY, Calif. — The Department of Energy's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), already one of the world's leading centers for scientific productivity, is now home to the fifth most powerful supercomputer in the world and the second most powerful in the United States, according to the latest edition of the TOP500 list, the definitive ranking of the world's top computers.
NERSC's newest supercomputer, a 153,408 processor-core Cray XE6 system, posted a performance of 1.05 petaflops (quadrillions of calculations per second) running the Linpack benchmark. In keeping with NERSC's tradition of naming computers for renowned scientists, the system is named Hopper in honor of Admiral Grace Hopper, a pioneer in software development and programming languages. The system, installed d in September 2010, is funded by DOE's Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research.
Established in 1974, NERSC is located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and provides computing systems and services to more than 3,000 researchers supported by the Department of Energy (DOE). NERSC's users, located at universities, national laboratories, and other research institutions around the country, report producing more than 1,500 scientific publications each year as a result of calculations run at NERSC.
“While we are elated to have entered the petascale performance arena, we are especially excited by the computational science potential offered by Hopper,” said Kathy Yelick, Director of the NERSC Division and Associate Laboratory Director of Computing Sciences at Berkeley Lab. “We selected Cray as the system vendor after a competitive procurement based in large part on how proposed systems performed running our application benchmarks. Now that the system is installed and operational, we will begin our acceptance testing in which we run some of the most demanding scientific applications to ensure that Hopper will meet the day-to-day demands of our users.”
NERSC serves one of the largest research communities of all supercomputing centers in the United States. The center's supercomputers are used to tackle a wide range of scientific challenges, including global climate change, combustion, clean energy, new materials, astrophysics, genomics, particle physics and chemistry. The more than 400 projects being addressed by NERSC users represent the research mission areas of DOE's Office of Science.
The increasing power of supercomputers helps scientists study problems in greater detail and with greater accuracy, such as increasing the resolution of climate models and creating models of new materials with thousands of atoms. Supercomputers are increasingly used to compliment scientific experimentation by allowing researchers to test theories using computational models and analyzed large scientific data sets. NERSC is also home to Franklin, a 38,128 core Cray XT4 supercomputer with a Linpack performance of 266 teraflops (trillions of calculations per second). Franklin is ranked number 27 on the newest TOP500 list.
About NERSC and Berkeley Lab
The National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) is the primary high-performance computing facility for scientific research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California for the DOE Office of Science.
( Nanowerk News ) There's good news in the search for the next generation of semiconductors. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California (UC) Berkeley, have successfully integrated ultra-thin layers of the semiconductor indium arsenide onto a silicon substrate to create a nanoscale transistor with excellent electronic properties. A member of the III–V family of semiconductors, indium arsenide offers several advantages as an alternative to silicon including superior electron mobility and velocity, which makes it an oustanding candidate for future high-speed, low-power electronic devices. Fabricating an indium oxide (InAs) device starts with a) epitaxially growing and etching InAs into nanoribbon arrays that are get stamped onto a silicon/silica (Si/SiO2 ) substrate; b) and c) InAs nanoribbon arrays on Si/SiO2; d) and e) InAs nanoribbon superstructures on Si/SiO2. "We've shown a simple route for the heterogeneous integration of indium arsenide layers down to a thickness of 10 nanometers on silicon substrates," says Ali Javey, a faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab's Materials Sciences Division and a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley, who led this research. "The devices we subsequently fabricated were shown to operate near the projected performance limits of III-V devices with minimal leakage current. Our devices also exhibited superior performance in terms of current density and transconductance as compared to silicon transistors of similar dimensions." For all its wondrous electronic properties, silicon has limitations that have prompted an intense search for alternative semiconductors to be used in future devices. Javey and his research group have focused on compound III–V semiconductors, which feature superb electron transport properties. The challenge has been to find a way of plugging these compound semiconductors into the well- established, low-cost processing technology used to produce today's silicon-based devices. Given the large lattice mismatch between silicon and III-V compound semiconductors, direct hetero-epitaxial growth of III-V on silicon substrates is challenging and complex, and often results in a high volume of defects. "We've demonstrated what we are calling an 'XOI,' or compound semiconductor-on-insulator technology platform, that is parallel to today's 'SOI,' or silicon-on-insulator platform," says Javey. "Using an epitaxial transfer method, we transferred ultrathin layers of single-crystal indium- arsenide on silicon/silica substrates, then fabricated devices using conventional processing techniques in order to characterize the XOI material and device properties." The results of this research have been published in the journal Nature, in a paper titled, "Ultrathin compound semiconductor on insulator layers for high-performance nanoscale transistors." Co-authoring the report with Javey were Hyunhyub Ko, Kuniharu Takei, Rehan Kapadia, Steven Chuang, Hui Fang, Paul Leu, Kartik Ganapathi, Elena Plis, Ha Sul Kim, Szu-Ying Chen, Morten Madsen, Alexandra Ford, Yu-Lun Chueh, Sanjay Krishna and Sayeef Salahuddin. To make their XOI platforms, Javey and his collaborators grew single-crystal indium arsenide thin films (10 to 100 nanometers thick) on a preliminary source substrate then lithographically patterned the films into ordered arrays of nanoribbons. After being removed from the source substrate through a selective wet-etching of an underlying sacrificial layer, the nanoribbon arrays were transferred to the silicon/silica substrate via a stamping process. Javey attributed the excellent electronic performance of the XOI transistors to the small dimensions of the active "X" layer and the critical role played by quantum confinement, which served to tune the material's band structure and transport properties. Although he and his group only used indium arsenide as their compound semiconductor, the technology should readily accommodate other compound III/V semiconductors as well. "Future research on the scalability of our process for 8-inch and 12-inch wafer processing is needed," Javey said. "Moving forward we believe that the XOI substrates can be obtained through a wafer bonding process, but our technique should make it possible to fabricate both p- and n- type transistors on the same chip for complementary electronics based on optimal III–V semiconductors. "Furthermore, this concept can be used to directly integrate high performance photodiodes, lasers, and light emitting diodes on conventional silicon substrates. Uniquely, this technique could enable us to study the basic material properties of inorganic semiconductors when the thickness is scaled down to only a few atomic layers." This research was funded in part by an LDRD grant from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and by the MARCO/MSD Focus Center at MIT, the Intel Corporation and the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center. Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research for DOE's Office of Science and is managed by the University of California. Visit our Website at www.lbl.gov Group Petitions EPA to Stop Sale of Nano-Copper Pesticides
(Beyond Pesticides, November 23, 2010) The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) filed a legal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling on the agency to use its pesticide regulation authority to halt the sale of untested nano-copper wood preservative products. The letter is the second ICTA challenge in the past two years of EPA's failure to regulate pesticidal nanomaterials. In 2008, ICTA, Beyond Pesticides, Friends of the Earth and others including filed a petition challenging EPA's failure to regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide.
ICTA research found nano-copper-based wood preservative pesticides in wide use. Yet, despite EPA's two-year old policy to classify such pesticides as “new” and requiring further data, the agency has not treated them any different than larger particle based preservatives. The three nano-copper products highlighted in the letter are manufactured by Osmose, Inc. In each instance, although the active ingredient, copper carbonate, was purchased from another company, the copper carbonate is then milled by Osmose to produce nanoparticles of copper carbonate. A 2008 report notes that nano-copper preservatives have captured at least 50% of the North American wood preservative market. However, recent reports have noted that market capture could be as high as 75-80% now.
The ultra small size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, but those same new properties–tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity–can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Failure to adequately test nanomaterials for their health and environmental hazard potential could lead to a new health crisis like that of asbestos or lead paint.
Scientists and researchers are becoming increasingly concerned with the potential impacts of nano-particles on public health and the environment. A new study by scientists from Oregon State University (OSU) and the European Union (EU) highlights the major regulatory and educational issues that they believe should be considered before nanoparticles are used in pesticides. The study was published October 2010 in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health .
Copper nanoparticles could be released from the treated wood during sawing or machining, cleaning, through normal wear and tear, or from product decomposition, and then become available for potential inhalation or ingestion. Reports stated in early 2009 that over five billion board feet of wood have been treated with its “micronized” copper products, so the potential for consumer exposure to nanoscale copper particles could be quite large.
“To our knowledge, EPA has never evaluated the potential hazards associated with the nanoscale particles of copper carbonate in wood treatment products,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director for ICTA. “Yet one of the companies issued a press release in 2009 in which it claimed that the “consumer safety” of its products has been “confirmed.”'
It has been the announced policy of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs since at least 2008 to presume that any active or inert ingredient that is or contains nanoscale material is a ‘new' ingredient for regulatory purposes under its pesticide regulations. However, in each instance pesticide manufacturers failed to informed EPA that its products contains nanoscale particles. Consumers have also been left in the dark about their potential exposure as these products are currently being marketed under the ambiguous label “micronized” copper.
EPA itself has recently recognized that, “Nano copper is more acutely toxic than micro copper.” Studies of the acute toxicity of elemental copper nanoparticles (23.5 nm) in mice found “gravely toxicological effects and heavy injuries on kidney, liver, and spleen.” In a study comparing the toxicity of various metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes, copper oxide nanoparticles (averaging 43 nm) were the most potent of all the nanoparticles tested at causing cytotoxicity and DNA damage. Although the potential toxicity of nanoscale particles of copper carbonate has not been equally well characterized, the results of the study with copper oxide nanoparticles are of particular concern because both copper oxide and copper carbonate include a bivalent copper ion. Additionally, copper is known to be toxic to aquatic organisms particularly during the larval stages of invertebrates, and algae and plant life can be affected as well.
ICTA is asking that EPA:
• immediately investigate the composition the known nano-copper based pesticides, and take appropriate administrative action; and
• thoroughly investigate other possible nano-copper products, including but not limited to copper-based wood treatment products currently available on the market, as similar actions under FIFRA may be necessary; and
• if EPA determines that any manufacturer of copper-based pesticide products, has distributed or sold any product that has a composition that differs from the composition of the registration of the product, EPA should take enforcement action under FIFRA Section 12(a)(1)(C); and
• finally, EPA should publish its long-awaited industry guidance on nano-scale pesticides (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650). A notice on pesticide products containing nanoscale materials was submitted to the US Office of Management and Budget on July 30, 2010; however, no further action has been taken.In 2007 a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, released the Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials , calling for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products. Beyond Pesticides has since advocated for a precautionary course of action in order to prevent unnecessary risks to the public, workers and the environment.
At its October 2010 meeting, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program to prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. More details about the NOSB action can be found in our blog posting, NOSB Proposes Ban on Nanotechnology in Certified Organic Products .
Full copies of the letter as well as past legal petitions filed with EPA and FDA are available at www.nanoaction.org .
Monday, November 22, 2010
EPA admits its rules would only reduce global temperature by 0.006 degrees in 90 years
.
"In rulemaking documents from April 2010, the EPA writes, “Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm),
Oct. 6, 2010 , " EPA estimates its greenhouse gas restrictions would reduce global temperature by no more than 0.006 of a degree in 90 years ," CNS News, C. Neefus
- global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.”" ...(item in middle of article)
" Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA's analysis.
- As a side effect, these rules would “slow construction nationwide for years,” the EPA said in a June 3 statement.
Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlighted those findings in a report released last week.
The GOP minority report , issued last Wednesday (9/29) , said a series of proposed and partially implemented new regulations on
- industrial boilers, greenhouse gas emitters, and ozone levels will put
- over 800,000 jobs at risk with little environmental benefit.
The authors cite the EPA's own staff to show that greenhouse gas regulations, which would require major sources of CO2 (carbon dioxide) to obtain permits and limit their output, could seriously harm the economy if implemented....
The EPA permits, under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, are already in place –
- but would be significantly expanded to include greenhouse gases.
“ (D)uring this time , tens of thousands of sources each year would be prevented from constructing or modifying,” the EPA staff wrote.
- “In fact, it is reasonable to assume that many of those sources will be forced to abandon altogether plans to construct or modify. As a result, a literal application (of the permit requirement) to GHG (greenhouse gas) sources would
slow construction nationwide for years, with all of the adverse effects that this would have on economic development.”
Because of these concerns, the EPA decided to create the “tailoring rule,” which changes the thresholds for being considered a major source of carbon;
- they claim this will limit immediate 2011 exposure to the regulations to only 900 sources.
But Republicans on the Senate EPW committee said that
a federal court could strike the tailoring rule because it does not follow explicit guidelines set out for the process of issuing permits for pollutants in the Clean Air Act (CAA), which has its own threshold of 100-250 tons of CO2 equivalent a year.
“(T)he tailoring rule violates the plain language of the CAA . The Act defines ‘major sources' as those that emit more than 100-250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant.
- In the tailoring rule, however, EPA arbitrarily changes those thresholds -- to 75,000 and 100,000 tons. For this reason,
- the rule likely won't survive judicial scrutiny,” the staff wrote.
All of these complications stem from EPA's desire to regulate mobile sources of greenhouse gases -- primarily automobiles. By issuing a finding
- last Spring that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, the EPA is able to regulate mobile output of the gas;
but the ancillary effect is that stationary CO2 emitters -- factories, schools, office buildings -- are now subject to those Clean Air Act regulations as well.
But the benefit of regulating those mobile sources is, also by the EPA's own estimations,
- as little as less than two thousandths of a degree in temperature reduction over a century.
In rulemaking documents from April 2010, the EPA writes, “Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations
- are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm),
- global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.”"...
Keeping an Eye on CERCLA While Exercising Remedies
Jeffrey B. Steiner and Jason R. Goldstein
New York Law Journal
November 17, 2010
Several years into a difficult economic climate, as commercial borrowers continue to default on loans secured by real property, a growing number of lenders face the prospect of employing the remedy of foreclosure. While financial institutions that make loans secured by commercial real estate are generally aware of the risks posed by foreclosing on real property that could or does in fact contain a hazardous substance covered by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 1 even sophisticated parties can place undue reliance on the protection of the statute's safe harbor for secured creditors or personal indemnities from borrower principals. While in certain circumstances the safe harbor protects foreclosing lenders from CERCLA liability, the scope of that protection is limited and, in many places, poorly defined. Even recent developments in CERCLA jurisprudence do not reveal a comprehensive or consistent body of law that lenders can rely on with more confidence than caution.
CERCLA, popularly called "Superfund," empowers the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) to compel the remediation of released hazardous substances by current "owners and operators" of the sites of such releases (referred to under the statute as "potentially responsible parties" (PRPs)). CERCLA imposes both strict liability and joint and several liability on PRPs. A lender who is deemed a PRP through its foreclosure on real estate collateral could therefore become fully liable for environmental conditions that the lender did not cause, the cost of which greatly exceeds the value of the bank's investment in the property and may predate by years the date on which the lender acquired the property.
Because of the effect a CERCLA designation may have on the credit available to owners of contaminated properties, from its inception CERCLA has contemplated an exemption for secured creditors. This exemption's tangled history, however, is indicative of the unsettledness that characterizes this area of law.
From enactment, CERCLA exempted from liability a lender that "holds indicia of ownership primarily to protect his security interest." 2 The legal uncertainty generated by this provision was later exacerbated by the decision in United States v. Fleet Factors , 3 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a lender could become liable as a PRP if its financial oversight provided it with the "capacity to influence" the borrower's environmental procedures. In response to Fleet Factors , the EPA issued a so-called Lender Liability Rule 4 in 1992 to provide specific guidance concerning types of activities lenders could take without triggering CERCLA liability. After lawmakers saw the Lender Liability Rule vacated on administrative grounds in 1994, 5 the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA issued a similarly ill-fated joint memorandum that did not have the effect of law or provide comfort with respect to suits brought by private parties. 6 To address this lack of firm rule, Congress subsequently amended CERCLA by codifying the secured-creditor exemption as part of the U.S. Asset Conservation, Lender Liability and Deposit Insurance Act of 1996.
Under the amended CERCLA rules, lenders can rely on the secured creditor safe harbor by establishing (i) that prior to foreclosure, the lender was (A) a bona fide secured creditor and (B) never participated in the borrower's management and (ii) that subsequent to foreclosure, the lender neither owns nor operates the borrower's property except for the purposes of preserving its value.
To properly establish itself as a protected secured creditor, the lender must hold its security interest in the real property primarily to secure the repayment of money or another obligation of the borrower. Applicable security interests include "a right under a mortgage, deed of trust, assignment, judgment lien, pledge, security agreement, factoring agreement, or lease and any other right accruing to a person to secure the repayment of money, the performance of a duty, or any other obligation by a nonaffiliated person." 7 Although this determination is fairly straightforward, lenders should be advised that several courts in the past have gone beyond merely establishing the existence of the indicia to investigating the purposes behind holding them. 8
Secondly, the lender must establish the extent to which it may exercise prudent oversight over its loan collateral while maintaining sufficient distance from the actual management of the borrower's property. 9 CERCLA expressly excludes certain actions from qualifying as "participation in management," including (i) conducting property inspections; and (ii) requiring a response to the actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance. 10
However, while collateral oversight actions are largely acceptable and properly isolate a secured lender from environmental liability, CERCLA does provide that a lender will be deemed to have participated in the management of the borrower's property if it: (i) makes decisions or takes responsibility for or control of the property's hazardous substance handling or disposal; or (ii) exercises managerial control over day-to-day decision making with respect to environmental matters or the "operational functions" of the facility other than the functions of environmental compliance. 11 Without a bright-line test distinguishing permissible environmental monitoring activities from impermissible ones, lenders must mind their actions carefully to avoid liability.
Participating in Management
Establishing whether a lender participated in management is a fact-sensitive inquiry, for which only limited judicial guidance exists. Mechanical reliance on the statutorily enumerated activities could prove insufficient to insulate a lender from liability. For instance, a lender could incur CERCLA liability if its activities with respect to a property individually fall within the letter of the law but collectively place the lender in de facto control of the property's environmental matters. Generally speaking, a lender can expect not to be considered to be "participating in management" if it only acts in furtherance of the preservation of the underlying collateral in a manner consistent with market practice.
The lender must establish grounds for pre-foreclosure reliance on the secured creditor safe harbor as a necessary precondition for relying on it post-foreclosure. After seizing the property, the lender can preserve the safe harbor only by selling the foreclosed property promptly while not acting in a way that would cause it to be deemed a PRP. As a result, both the period of time in which the lender must sell the property and operation of that property in the interim can provide a basis for challenging a lender's post-foreclosure reliance on the safe harbor.
After foreclosure, the lender must make commercially reasonable efforts to divest itself of the property at the earliest commercially reasonable time on commercially reasonable terms, taking into account market, legal and regulatory considerations. 12 CERCLA does not indicate what length of time is considered commercially reasonable. The EPA has provided separate guidance that listing the property with a broker or advertising it for sale within 12 months of the foreclosure is generally acceptable, but has considered, and declined, to provide a bright-line rule for holding the property. As determining whether a holding period is commercially reasonable is clearly a fact-sensitive inquiry, lenders should thoroughly document their marketing efforts during the period. The lender should also be aware that at some point the tenure of possession could extend long enough for the lender to be deemed the property's owner or operator.
As discussed, the safe harbor provision permits the lender to operate the property while attempting to sell, re-lease, or otherwise dispose of property. This operation can take the form of maintaining or winding up any business activities on the property, addressing the actual or threatened release of the hazardous material, or otherwise taking steps to preserve the property's value. If the lender begins to act as a property owner (e.g., by expanding any business on the property or soliciting investors), however, it runs the risk of being deemed the property's owner or operator. This is another facts-and-circumstance inquiry that does not admit to a ready rule. The lender must therefore similarly document that all actions with respect to the property were taken merely to maintain the property's value. With today's lenders frequently taking over existing unsold condominium units, foreclosing mortgagees ought to carefully monitor their sales efforts to demonstrate active marketing.
Even if the lender successfully navigates the challenges of staying within the CERCLA secured creditor safe harbor, the limits of that exemption could pose further complications.
First, the safe harbor only insulates the lender from liability as a PRP under CERCLA. To the extent that an environmental liability is not governed by CERCLA (such as, for example, petroleum or natural gas, which are not defined as a "hazardous substances" under the statute), or liability is incurred under another federal or applicable state statute, the lender is not protected by CERCLA's safe harbor.
Second, the safe harbor provisions only protect the lender when it forecloses on the borrower's real property directly rather than foreclosing on the borrower's equity. Any mezzanine lender foreclosing on the membership interests of a borrower owning CERCLA-designated property would end up the borrower's parent or corporate successor, and thereby assume the property's CERCLA liability.
Third, the secured creditor exemption only offers lenders protection from liability for past contamination based upon their status as lenders or as owners after foreclosure; a lender's actions or omissions that cause new contamination can independently serve as a basis for deeming a lender an "operator" (and hence a PRP) of the property. 13
This responsibility for contamination can be imputed to a lender for actions that are relatively remote to the environmental liability. In one much-discussed case, New York v. HSBC USA, N.A. , 14 the State of New York claimed a lender was outside of the secured creditor exemption because it had instituted a lock-box on all of a borrower's operating funds, and denied disbursements necessary for the borrower to comply with environmental regulations.
The lender settled out of court for nearly $1 million in civil penalties and costs. Although the settlement precluded the creation of judicial precedent, the case demonstrates that lenders can be pursued for CERCLA damages for actions that could be seen as protective of the loan and not "participation in management." Any significant control over the company's environmental management, even through commonly used financing conventions such as cash management, could conceivably lead to a lender's liability for any resulting contamination or noncompliance.
Finally, as a practical concern, even if the lender can comfortably rely on the safe harbor from CERCLA liability, that protection will not be available to any prospective third party purchaser of the foreclosed property. This could have the effect of reducing the value of the collateral by the amount necessary to remediate any contamination. The lender is also at a disadvantage in negotiating sales with prospective purchasers, as holding on to the property for too long can cause the lender to be deemed the property's owner and operator.
Remedies
In light of these concerns, a lender considering foreclosure should carefully review all reasonable alternatives. This does not mean, however, that the lender has no options in the face of a borrower with contaminated collateral.
The lender could foreclose on the property in reliance upon the environmental indemnities that are standard in most sophisticated loan agreements. Under typical environmental indemnification clauses, the borrower, its affiliates and its principals are liable for any costs incurred to clean up any contamination of the collateral. These clauses typically survive the loan's repayment or default, and can, if skillfully drafted, protect the lender even after the property's sale to a third party. Even if a lender does not intend to foreclose, a strong indemnification provision from a creditworthy individual or entity can serve as an insurance policy should an attempt be later made to characterize the lender as a PRP.
Alternatively, when appropriate, a lender can seek to have the property administered by a court-appointed receiver or other suitable fiduciary. Naturally the availability of these alternatives turns on underlying circumstances and applicable law; however, there are no grounds for assuming that either the borrower or the lender must always hold the real property.
In conclusion, a lender contemplating foreclosure on CERCLA-implicated property cannot assume that its status as a secured creditor automatically entitles it to the secured creditor safe harbor. A lender must have established its appropriate conduct with respect to the property's management before foreclosure and should have a plan for disposing of the property afterwards. An observance of the niceties of the law in these circumstances is particularly important to lenders, as federal and state environmental agencies attempting to fund remediation and PRPs seeking contributors are all incentivized to prove lender noncompliance. With caution and an acknowledgment of both the legal and practical aspects of the safe harbor, however, a lender can chart a course of action with as much confidence as this area of law permits.
Jeffrey B. Steiner and Jason R. Goldstein are members of DLA Piper (US). Matthew McDermott , an associate of the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article.
Endnotes:
2. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(A)(iii).
3. 901 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 (1991).
4. 57 Fed. Reg. 18344 (1992).
5. Kelley v. EPA , 15 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
6. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, and Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Policy on CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders and Government Entities that Acquire Property Involuntarily (Oct. 23, 1995).
7. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(G)(vi).
8. See, e.g., Monarch Tile Inc. v. City of Florence , 212 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2000).
9. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(F).
10. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(F)(iv).
11. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(F)-(G).
12. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(E)(ii).
13. See, e.g., F.P. Woll Co. v. Fifth & Mitchell St. Corp. , 1997 WL 535936, unreported (E.D. Pa. 1997).
14. Docket No. 07-CV-3160 (Dec. 22, 2006 Consent Decree).
CONTACT:
Jalil Isa (Media Inquiries Only)
isa.jalil@epa.gov
202-564-3226
202-564-4355
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2010
EPA Releases New Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Selecting Safe School Locations
EPA provides new tools for communities making school siting decisions
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released draft voluntary guidelines to help communities protect the health of students and staff from environmental threats when selecting new locations for schools.
More than 1,900 new schools serving approximately 1.2 million children and costing more than $13 billion opened in the 2008-2009 school year. Major investments in our children's schools can be compromised if environmental hazards are not fully understood prior to selecting a school site. The voluntary guidelines also provide tools to help communities ensure that new locations for schools are accessible to the students they are intended to serve.
“EPA is offering tools to local officials and community residents looking to build schools that foster healthy, productive learning environments,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This guidance will help address the pressing environmental issues that parents, school boards and local residents often consider when making investments in their local schools. By offering guidance on long-term environmental and health concerns, it will also help local communities plan ahead and reduce the risk of costly changes down the road.”
The potential impacts on children's health and education, as well as the damage to the community when school environmental hazards are later identified, are significant. In some cases, schools have been closed and in other cases have undergone costly remediation.
The new draft voluntary guidelines will give local communities tools to help them consider environmental health issues in establishing school site selection criteria and in conducting effective environmental reviews of potential school sites. The draft guidelines recommend involving the public in the site selection process from the beginning to help ensure community support for these decisions.
EPA developed the draft guidelines in consultation with other federal agencies, states, school districts, community organizations, health care professionals, teachers, as well as environmental justice leaders, and children's health and environmental groups, among others.
The draft school siting guidelines are being made available for public comment for 90 days. Comments will be accepted until 4 pm EST on February 18, 2011.
To view and comment on the draft guidelines: http://epaschoolsiting.icfi.com/
More information on the draft school siting guidelines and on protecting children's health in existing schools: http://epa.gov/schools/
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
View all news releases related to miscellaneous topics
Otter criticizes EPA cleanup plan for N. Idaho
- Posted November 17, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho (AP) - Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is criticizing a proposal by federal environmental regulators for expanding their cleanup of historic mining waste and contaminants in Idaho's Silver Valley region.
Otter outlined his concerns in a letter submitted Monday to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is taking public comments on its plan - called an amended Record of Decision - for extracting heavy metals, treating water and eliminating toxic mine sites along a 40-mile stretch of the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River basin.
The Republican governor urged the EPA to set reasonable goals and cautioned against any projects that could imperil existing or future mining in the region.
"In my view, the proposed ROD amendment must not go forward unless the EPA commits that cleanup work will not impede existing or future mining," according to Otter's letter, reported by the Coeur d'Alene Press. "Moreover, the proposed ROD is not acceptable unless the EPA identifies and commits to reasonable and achievable endpoints."
The EPA has spent nearly 20 years cleaning up the Superfund site in Kellogg that was once one of the most polluted places in the country, with arsenic and lead stripping the hillsides of vegetation and poisoning the blood of children.
The agency now wants to broaden the cleanup to outlying areas and more rivers and streams. The price tag is estimated at $1.3 billion and could take anywhere from 50 to 90 years to complete. The expansion would be partially funded by a recent $500 million settlement with Asarco, one of the successors of the Bunker Hill mine that is blamed for polluting the valley.
But there are mixed feelings in northern Idaho about such an extended and pricey expansion. Some residents and leaders would rather have the cleanup and EPA presence wind down and worry the agency's long-term presence will stunt the region's prospects for economic growth.
Otter said he talked with lawmakers and other leaders in the region before submitting his letter.
He urged the agency to set a defined and limited timeframe for the additional cleanup and to draft it in a way that focuses on human-health restoration.
He criticized the section of the proposal devoted to water treatment, calling it an open-ended plan to "wildly spend public resources and perform work that is of questionable value," according to the letter.
Dan Opalski, EPA director of environmental cleanup, said the agency will consider comments that have been submitted in the last four months. But he says the agency still has a mission to do use the best science and technology available to meet its legal mandate to clean up the environment.
"It's understandable that some people have serious concerns," Opalski said. "But ultimately, we'll be weighing all the input we receive ... and considering the underpinnings of science and the responsibilities we have under the law."
The public comment period ends Nov. 23.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/nov/17/otter-criticizes-epa-cleanup-plan-for-n-idaho/#ixzz15ZjpYBNR
- vcstar.comGovernmental Controls: Types of institutional controls that impose land or resource restrictions using the authority of an existing unit of government (e.g., state legislation, local ordinance, well drilling permit, etc.).
Consent Decree: Legal document approved by a judge that formalizes an agreement reached between EPA and companies, governments, or individuals associated with contamination at the sites (potentially responsible parties (PRPs)) through which PRPs will take certain actions to resolve the contamination at a Superfund site.
HALFWAY TO EUREKA
CERCLA allows a private party to recover its attorney fees and expenses incurred in bringing a cost-recovery action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(4)(B). reasonable and necessary costs of its cleanup, including the attorney fees and expenses incurred in bringing this cost-recovery action. IMMI would be a section 9613(f)(1) liable party only if it owned the site at the time the wastes were dumped or was responsible otherwise for the dumped wastes. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a). Since that is not the case, IMMI is not a liable party and cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(f)(1)
IMMI has met the state cleanup standards, which is what 40 CFR Sec. 300.71(a)(4) required. Thus, the consent decree does not obligate IMMI to clean the site past what CERCLA and the NCP required
40 CFR Sec. 300.65(b)(3) requires removal actions to end after either one million dollars has been obligated or six months have elapsed from the date of the initial response.
CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(A) allows the government to recover all costs of removal or remedial action "not inconsistent with the national contingency plan." When the United States is seeking recovery of response costs, consistency with the NCP is presumed. Washington State Dept. of Transp., 59 F.3d at 799-800; United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1436, 1442 (10th Cir.1992). The potentially responsible party has the burden of proving inconsistency with the NCP. Washington State DOT, 59 F.3d at 800. "To prove that a response action of the EPA was inconsistent with the NCP, a defendant must prove that the EPA's response action was arbitrary and capricious." Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 9613(j)(2).
2. Documentation
The NCP requires:
During all phases of response, the lead agency shall complete and maintain documentation to support all actions taken under the NCP and to form the basis for cost recovery.
40 C.F.R. § 300.160(a)(1) (1990).
5. Community Relations Plan
The NCP specifies the necessary community relations activities to be taken in a removal action. The 1990 NCP requires that in removal actions where "on-site action is expected to extend beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site removal activities," the EPA shall prepare a formal community relations plan. 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(n)(3) (1990). The plan should address the public's concerns and outline any community relations activities that the EPA expects to undertake. Id. at (n)(3)(ii).
The 1985 NCP requires the same formal community relations plan, but the plan is required if the on-site removal activities are expected to extend beyond 45 days. 40 C.F.R. § 300.67(b) (1985).
Empowering Safe Lands & Watersheds
1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. Stakeholder Meetings/CEQA
Iron Mountain Mine advancing the development of renewable energy on potentially uncontaminated land
WHY IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO BUY A PROPERTY WITHIN A SUPERFUND SITE?
LOCATION, location, location. Many Superfund sites have advantageous and desirable locations. Some federal, state, and local government agencies offer grants, loans, and tax incentives to encourage development and revitalization of contaminated and formerly contaminated properties and surrounding areas.
Superfund sites throughout the country have been transformed into major shopping centers, business parks, residential subdivisions, and recreational facilities. Many more Superfund sites are being revitalized for use by small businesses. A large number of Superfund sites are suitable for revitalization even while cleanup on the property progresses. (See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ programs/recycle/ for more information on revitalization of Superfund sites). Integrating the reuse of a Superfund site into the cleanup can often occur smoothly, which minimizes future surprises regarding undiscovered contamination.HOW DO I IDENTIFY ALL OF THE PARTIES I HAVE TO DEAL WITH TO BUY THE SITE OR A PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE AND HOW IS EPA INVOLVED?
THERE is no simple solution to identify all of the parties associated with a Superfund site but the process begins with the current owner. As with the purchase of any property, negotiations to buy a Superfund site begin with the current owner who can be identified through property title or tax records. EPA rarely owns the site being cleaned up. Generally, EPA’s Regional offices may assist in addressing the following questions:
•
What is the current status of a site’s cleanup and what are EPA’s future anticipated actions?
•
Is the proposed redevelopment compatible with a site’s cleanup and with the existing and potential future property use restrictions? Note: EPA does not offer guarantees of compatibility.
•
Is the prospective purchaser aware of the applicable landowner liability protections under Superfund?
•
How can EPA work with the prospective purchaser to settle or resolve any EPA liens?7
EPA is willing to work with prospective purchasers to clarify a property’s cleanup status and potential liability issues including the existence and satisfaction of EPA liens and property use restrictions. States also have cleanup programs and prospective purchasers should contact the appropriate state environmental agency to make certain they are aware of planned or ongoing state-lead cleanup actions at the property.The cleanup process proceeds as follows. The EPA places a site on
the National Priorities List ("NPL") if it poses a release threat mandating
long-term remedial evaluation and response.27 A Remedial Investigation
("RI") is then conducted to determine the extent of the contamination.28 A
Feasibility Study ("FS") follows to evaluate remediation and create site
management alternatives based on the RI. 29 The goals of the RI/FS process
are to determine what contaminants are present, determine the level of
dispersement in the environment, develop a list of potential cleanup method
alternatives, and use computer modeling to predict potential effects that each
alternative could present.3" The EPA considers the remedy alternatives
presented in the RI/FS according to nine factors: health protectiveness;
compliance with relevant laws and standards; long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; state acceptance; and
community acceptance.3 The EPA issues a Record of Decision ("ROD")
that outlines a proposed remedial plan consisting of the Remedial Design
("RD") and Remedial Action ("RA").32 The ROD specifically selects a
remedial method from the RI/FS for the site that provides adequate protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment.33
The EPA implements the ROD in one of three ways. First, the EPA
can take over the site and hire a contractor to conduct the cleanup.34 When
the EPA takes over a site, it can sue PRPs to recover for CERCLA costs and
26 See United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 1432, 1446 (E.D. Cal.
1995).6560.50
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9227-5]
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or
Superfund, Section 128(a); Notice of Grant Funding Guidance for State and Tribal
Response Programs for FY2011
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin to accept requests, from
December 1, 2010 through January 31, 2011, for grants to supplement State and Tribal Response
Programs. This notice provides guidance on eligibility for funding, use of funding, grant
mechanisms and process for awarding funding, the allocation system for distribution of funding,
and terms and reporting under these grants. EPA has consulted with state and tribal officials in
developing this guidance.
The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or
are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements and a public record. Another goal is to
provide funding for other activities that increase the number of response actions conducted or
overseen by a state or tribal response program. This funding is not intended to supplant current
state or tribal funding for their response programs. Instead, it is to supplement their funding to
increase their response capacity.
For fiscal year 2011, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.3 million per
state or tribe. Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will be available to
provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out these grants.VII. USE OF FUNDING
A. Overview
Section 128(a)(1)(B) describes the eligible uses of cooperative agreement funds by states and
tribes. In general, a state or tribe may use a cooperative agreement to "establish or enhance" their response programs, including elements of the response program that include activities
related to responses at brownfields sites with petroleum contamination. Eligible activities
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Develop legislation, regulations, procedures, ordinances, guidance, etc.
that would establish or enhance the administrative and legal structure of
their response programs;
• Establish and maintain the required public record as described in Section VI;
• EPA considers activities related to maintaining and monitoring
institutional controls to be eligible costs under Section 128(a);
• Conduct limited site-specific activities, such as assessment or cleanup,
provided such activities establish and/or enhance the response program
and are tied to the four elements. In addition to the requirement per
CERCLA Section 128(a)(2)(C)(ii) to obtain public comment on cleanup
plans and site activities, EPA strongly encourages states and tribes to seek
public input regarding the priority of sites to be addressed and solicit input
from local communities, especially potential environmental justice
communities, communities with a health risk related to exposure to
hazardous waste or other public health concerns, economically
disadvantaged or remote areas, and communities with limited experience
working with government agencies. EPA will not provide Section 128(a)
funds solely for assessment or cleanup of specific brownfields sites; site specific activities must be an incidental part of an overall Section 128(a)
work plan that includes funding for other activities that establish or
enhance the four elements;
• Capitalize a revolving loan fund (RLF) for brownfields cleanup under
CERCLA Section 104(k)(3). These RLFs are subject to the same statutory
requirements and cooperative agreement terms and conditions applicable
to RLFs awarded under Section 104(k)(3). Requirements include a 20
percent match on the amount of Section 128(a) funds used for the RLF, a
prohibition on using EPA cooperative agreement funds for administrative
costs relating to the RLF, and a prohibition on using RLF loans or
subgrants for response costs at a site for which the recipient may be
potentially liable under Section 107 of CERCLA. Other prohibitions
contained in CERCLA Section 104(k)(4) also apply; or
• Purchase environmental insurance or develop a risk-sharing pool,
indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response
actions under a state or tribal response program.1. Timely survey and inventory
2. Oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms;
3. Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation;
4. Mechanisms or approval of a cleanup plan and verification and certification that cleanup is complete.
EPA Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinator
EPA is divided into ten regions. Each region has designated a central Compliance Assistance Coordinator to oversee regional actions. Regional compliance assistance activities include developing and conducting workshops and training sessions, responding to questions from the regulated community, developing and distributing guidance materials and providing direct on-site compliance assistance. To get information about your local Compliance Assistance Coordinator, select your state or territory from this list or from the map below.
Region/State Contact Web site
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) Mary Dever
(617) 918-1717
dever.mary@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region1/assistance/index.html Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI) Linda Longo
(212) 637-3565
longo.linda@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region02/capp Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV) Makeba Morris
(215) 814-2187
morris.makeba@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region03/compliance_assistance/index.htm Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) Wes Hardegree
(404) 562-9629
hardegree.wes@epa.govhttp://www.epa.gov/region4/index.html Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) Donna Howard
(312) 886-6739
howard.donna@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region5/enforcement/index.htm Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) Israel Anderson
(214) 665-3138
anderson.israel@epa.govwww.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/ca/ca.htm Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) Neal Gilbert
(913) 551-7985
gilbert.neil@epa.govwww.epa.gov/Region07/enforcement_compliance/index.htm Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) Kaye Mathews
(303) 312-6889
mathews.kaye@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region08/enforcement_compliance Region 9 (AS, AZ, CA, GU, HI, MP, NV, Trust Territories) Hilary Hecht
(415) 947-4266
hecht.hilary@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region9/enforcement/assistance.html Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) Gabriela Carvalho
(206) 553-6698
carvalho.gabriela@epa.gov
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ENFORCE.NSF.html
Local Government Compliance Assistance Center
EPA, working with industry, academic institutions, environmental groups, and other agencies, sponsors compliance assistance centers that address the requirements of specific sectors.
The Local Government Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN) is a "first-stop shop" providing environmental management, planning, funding, and regulatory information for local government elected and appointed officials, managers and staff. LGEAN enables local officials to interact with their peers and others online.
Latest News and Updates
Local Governments Reimbursement Program
In the event of a release (or threatened release) of hazardous substances, EPA may reimburse local governments for expenses related to the release and associated emergency response measures. The Local Governments Reimbursement (LGR) Program provides a "safety net" of up to $25,000 per incident to local governments that do not have funds available to pay for response actions.Operation Fresh Start is designed to empower individuals and communities as they recover from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters by providing resources and tools that can help rebuild communities, businesses, and homes using sustainable principles and technologies. Use the links located on the left to explore the many valuable resources available on this Web site.
Several organizations, agencies and businesses are fostering sustainable recovery and rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Some online resources are linked below, ranging from news postings to restoration plans for individual buildings, neighborhoods, or regions. Someof these endeavors invite professional or pubic input in the recovery process, while others function as technical resources for environmentally, economically, and socially just rebuilding.
We hereby execute our sovereign absolute authority which allows intervention as of right in any civil or administrative action to obtain remedies by any citizen having an interest which is or may be adversely affected; all citizen complaints submitted pursuant to the procedures specified in §123.26(b)(4); permissive intervention authorized by statute, rule, or regulation; October 14, 2010 Citizens seek to join suit over EPA mining rules
Identify the breakdowns in management that allowed actions prohibited by EPA ethics policies to occur and implement accountability.
We believe that the underlying issues persist.
EMANCIPATE T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
Innocent and “Unknowing” Purchasers
Entities that acquire property and had no knowledge of the contamination at the time of purchase may be eligible for CERCLA’s third- party defense for certain purchasers of contaminated property. CERCLA §§ 107(b)(3), 101(35)(A)(i). This defense, added to CERCLA in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499), provides entities with an affirmative defense to liability if they conducted all appropriate inquiries prior to purchase and complied with other pre- and post-purchase requirements. The 2002 Brownfields Amendments partially amended the innocent purchaser defense by elaborating on the all appropriate inquiry requirement. See the “All Appropriate Inquiries” text box on page 17.
The innocent purchaser defense may provide liability protection to some owners of contaminated property -- especially those that purchased property prior to January 1, 2002, and are therefore ineligible for the bona fide prospective purchaser protection -- but generally most post-2002 prospective purchasers will not rely on this defense because of the requirement that the purchaser have no knowledge of contamination at the site.
Several of EPA’s guidance documents discuss the innocent purchaser third-party defense, including the Common Elements guidance, discussed below in Section II.A.5 beginning on page 21.
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 03/23/2009 . 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.
Description of Modification
Corrected Title
Document Type: Modification to Previous Grants Notice Funding Opportunity Number: PD-10-1179 Opportunity Category: Discretionary Posted Date: Mar 23, 2009 Creation Date: Oct 20, 2010 Original Closing Date for Applications: Mar 03, 2011 Full Proposal Window: February 1, 2011 - March 3, 2011 Full Proposal Window: August 15, 2011 - September 15, 2011 Current Closing Date for Applications: Mar 03, 2011 Full Proposal Window: February 1, 2011 - March 3, 2011 Full Proposal Window: August 15, 2011 - September 15, 2011 Archive Date:
Funding Instrument Type: Grant
Category of Funding Activity: Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards: 0 Estimated Total Program Funding: $0 Award Ceiling:
Award Floor:
CFDA Number(s): 47.041 -- Engineering Grants Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No Eligible Applicants
Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility"
Additional Information on Eligibility:
Agency Name
National Science Foundation
Description
The Environmental Implications of Emerging Technologies program provides support to develop and test the environmental effects of new technologies. Fundamental and basic research is sought to establish and understand outcomes as a result of the implementation of new technologies such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. The program also supports research on the development and refinement of sensors and sensor network technologies that can be used to measure a wide variety of physical, chemical, and biological properties of interest in characterizing, monitoring, and understanding environmental impacts.The program emphasizes engineering principles underlying technology impacts. Innovative production processes, waste reduction, recycling, and industrial ecology technologies are of interest. All of these have implications that would be relevant to this program. Current areas of support include: * Understanding and mitigating how new developments in nanotechnology and biotechnology will interact with the environment * Nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety implications and applications * Predictive methodology for the interaction of nanoparticles with the environment and with the human body, including predictive approaches for toxicity * Fate and transport of natural, engineered, and incidental (by-product) nanoparticles * Risk assessment and management of the effect of nanomaterials in the environment * Sensor and sensor network technologies as they relate to the measurement of these environmental implicationsCurrent areas of support for this program do not include biomedical and nanotoxicology topics involving clinical trials.All proposed research should be driven by engineering principles, and presented in an environmental health and safety or environmental sensor context. Proposals should include involvement of at least one engineering student.The duration of unsolicited awards is generally one to three years. The average annual award size for the program is $100,000. Small equipment proposals of less than $100,000 will also be considered and may be submitted during these windows. Any proposal received outside the announced dates will be returned without review.The duration of CAREER awards is five years. The submission deadline for Engineering CAREER proposals is in July every year. Please see the following URL for more information: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08051/nsf08051.jsp.Proposals for Conferences, Workshops, and Supplements may be submitted at any time, but must be discussed with the program director before submission.Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) replace the SGER program. Please note that proposals of these types must be discussed with the program director before submission. Further details are available in the PAPPG download, available below. Please refer to the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), January 2009, (NSF 09-1) when you prepare your proposal.
Link to Full Announcement
NSF Program Description 09-1179
If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:
NSF grants.gov support
grantsgovsupport@nsf.gov
If you have any problems linking to this funding announcement, please contactSynopsis Modification History
The following files represent the modifications to this synopsis with the changes noted within the documents. The list of files is arranged from newest to oldest with the newest file representing the current synopsis. Changed sections from the previous document are shown in a light grey background.
File Name Date
Modification #4 Sep 27, 2010 Modification #3 Mar 11, 2010 Modification #2 Nov 16, 2009 Modification #1 Nov 16, 2009 Original Synopsis Mar 23, 2009 During the New Deal Era, the Supreme Court began to depart from the Lochner era constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause , Due Process , and the Contract Clause.
In Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934), the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that temporarily restricted the ability of mortgage holders to foreclose. The law was enacted to prevent mass foreclosures during a time of economic hardship in America . The kind of contract modification performed by the law in question was arguably similar to the kind that the Framers intended to prohibit. The Supreme Court held that this law was a valid exercise of the state's Police Power . It found that the temporary nature of the contract modification and the emergency of the situation justified the law.. [ 18 ]
Further cases have refined this holding, differentiating between governmental interference with private contracts and interference with contracts entered into by the government. Succinctly, there is more scrutiny when the government modifies a contract to alter its own obligations. (See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey , 431 U.S. 1 (1977).) [ 18 ]
Modification of Private Contracts
The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law violates the Contract Clause in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983). First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." 459 U.S. at 411-13 Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. This test is similar to rational basis review. [ 18 ]
Modification of Government Contracts
In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey , the Supreme Court held that a higher level of scrutiny was needed for situations where laws modified the government's own contractual obligations. In this case, New Jersey had issued bonds to finance the World Trade Center and had contractually promised the bondholders that the collateral would not be used to finance money losing rail operations. Later, New Jersey attempted to modify law to allow financing of railway operations, and the bondholders successfully sued to prevent this from happening. [ 19 ]
"Mr. Chairman: EPA's ability to effectively manage, oversee, and enforce the environmental laws under its jurisdiction, including the Clean Water Act, has been impeded by several factors including its current organizational structure, how it oversees State delegated authorities, and limitations in performance measurements. On the 37th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, we believe that a recommitment to the protection of the nation's waters can be achieved by an EPA that is strategically aligned to uniformly enforce environmental statutes and provide consistent oversight of its Regions and State delegations. This will require a comprehensive review of EPA's current organization and a commitment to implement best practices."
A Primer in Constitutional law
Congress' enumerated powers
Shares of fertilizer producers soar
Food prices and agriculture exchange traded funds (ETFs) both may reflect the news contained in the USDA's harvest projections.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture cut its harvest projections for corn, soybeans and wheat, adding fuel to the commodity-rally fire . Meanwhile, further concerns about a food shortage are becoming a reality. Scott Kilman and Liam Pleven for The Wall Street Journal report that the agency's decision to cut its month-old corn projection by 3.8% was startling to many. [ Commodity ETFs Are Leading The Charge. ]
Historically, though, the USDA's forecast for corn crops is still the third-largest ever.
Economists expect farmers to respond to high grain prices by planting millions more acres of corn and wheat , which should benefit sellers of seed and chemicals to farmers such as Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co. The larger threat comes from using other farmland for those commodities in a shortage in order to make up. This could in turn create another shortage.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - HEMATITAN™ $1200/TON - $45/ 5 gal. plus shipping fax to 530-275-4559
VINDICATION OF FALSE CLAIMS, EPA ACTIONS ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DISCRETION, THE GOVERNMENTS CONDUCT IS INTENTIONAL AND MALICIOUS RECKLESS NEGLIGENT ENDANGERMENT WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
COPPER COMES PRIMARILY FROM AUTOMOBILE BRAKE WEAR IN BAY AREA STORM WATER RUN-OFF AND BOAT PAINT
CADMIUM COMES FROM THE MOTH-BALL FLEETS FLAKING PAINT AND OLD BATTERIES
ZINC IS NOT POLLUTION, IT IS A NUTRIENT (LIKE COPPER)
IRON MOUNTAIN HAS NO MERCURY HALO, SO ASK YOUR DENTIST
KESWICK LAKE AND THE CABECERA DEL RIO DE BUENAVENTURA (OLD SACRAMENTO) TO REDBLUFF DAM HAVE THE SAFEST FISH TO EAT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COPPER, ZINC, IRON, MAGNESIUM, MANGANESE, SULFUR, CALCIUM, MOLYBDENUM, PHOSPHORUS, POTASSIUM, ETC. HUNGRY YET?
One of the essential minerals needed by our body, zinc is present in almost each and every cell. It is required by the body in the performance of a number of functions, though in very small amounts. It plays a vital role in the action of enzymes, which are nothing, but the proteins that are responsible for initiating important chemical reactions in the body. Zinc is also required for proper growth and sexual maturation of an individual. The mineral can be easily found in the food items that we eat in the daily course of life. So, if you take a balanced diet, complete with salads and fruits, there will be enough zinc in your body to perform all the necessary functions. Read on to explore the list of foods items that are high in zinc.
Zinc Rich Foods
- All-bran cereal
- Almonds
- Artichoke
- Avocado
- Bananas
- Beef
- Blackberries
- Brazil nuts
- Brewers yeast
- Cashew
- Cauliflower
- Cheese
- Chicken (dark meat)
- Chickpeas (including hummus and falafel)
- Crab, Dungeness
- Cucumber
- Eggs
- Fish
- Kidney beans
- Kiwi fruit
- Lettuce
- Lima beans
- Liver
- Milk
- Olives
- Onion
- Oysters
- Parmesan Cheese
- Peaches
- Peanuts
- Peas
- Pecan Nuts
- Pine Nuts
- Pork
- Pumpkin seeds
- Radish
- Shellfish
- Soya beans (including tofu products)
- Spinach
- Squash
- Strawberries
- Sunflower seeds
- Sweet potatoes
- Tomatoes
- Turkey (dark meat)
- Walnuts
- Wheat Bran
- Wheat Germ
- Yogurt Benefits Of Zinc
- Zinc is very helpful in skin treatment . It is very useful in treating acne and pimples. Zinc also helps in assisting the body to normalize the amount of oils on the skin. It not only helps in removing the acne and pimples but also keeps the skin supple and smooth. Taking foods rich in zinc will help you keep your skin healthy.
- Eczema is mainly caused because of the deficiency of zinc in the body. Taking zinc supplements or foods rich in zinc will help in restoring the healing property of the body and treating eczema.
- Zinc promotes the synthesis of collagen, which is a necessary element of proper wound healing. Deficiency of zinc can lead to delayed wound healing. Take zinc rich foods on a regular basis.
- The deficiency of zinc can cause enlargement of prostrate which in turn make it vulnerable to cancer. Take zinc supplements or foods rich in zinc such as yogurt, walnut, wheat bran, sweet potatoes to combat the problem.
- If you are planning to lose weight , taking zinc rich food would be your best bet. Zinc not only assists in losing the weight but also controls the appetite making it easier for a person on diet.
- If you are among those for whom a weather change brings about an attack of cold, then taking zinc supplements or zinc rich food would be good for you. Zinc helps in decreasing the severity of cold.
- Zinc is also very essential for the proper functioning and repairing of DNA. Pregnant women should take zinc rich food for the proper growth of fetus.
- It is also helpful in relieving from chronic fatigue. According to the doctors, fish oils contain which is very rich in zinc no other medications are required for curing chronic fatigue except the intake of fish oil rich in zinc content.
- Zinc is also helpful in case of night blindness. Incorporate zinc rich foods in your diet especially, pork, olives, liver etc.
- Zinc also acts as antioxidants and helps in regulating biological functions. It helps in diabetes control, increases immunity, keeps the stress level in check, and regulates the enzyme functions for a proper development.
copper
What can foods high in copper do for you?
- Help your body utilize iron
- Reduce tissue damage caused by free radicals
- Maintain the health of your bones and connective tissues
- Help your body produce the pigment called melanin
- Keep your thyroid gland functioning normally
- Preserve the myelin sheath that surrounds and protects your nerves
What events can indicate a need for more high-copper foods?
- Iron deficiency anemia
- Blood vessels that rupture easily
- Bone and joint problems
- Elevated LDL cholesterol and reduced HDL cholesterol levels
- Frequent infections
- Loss of hair or skin color
- Fatigue and weakness
- Difficulty breathing and irregular heart beat
- Skin sores
Excellent food sources of copper include calf's liver , crimini mushrooms , turnip greens and blackstrap molasses.
What is copper?
First recognized in the 1870's as a normal constituent of blood, copper is a trace mineral that plays an important role in our metabolism, largely because it allows many critical enzymes to function properly. Although copper is the third most abundant trace mineral in the body (behind iron and zinc), the total amount of copper in the body is only 75-100 milligrams, less than the amount of copper in a penny. Copper is present in every tissue of the body, but is stored primarily in the liver, so concentrations of the mineral are highest in that organ, with lesser amounts found in the brain, heart, kidney, and muscles.
What is the function of copper?
Copper is an essential component of many enzymes. Each of the copper-containing enzymes discussed below has a distinct function, indicating that copper plays a role in a wide range of physiological processes including iron utilization, elimination of free radicals, development of bone and connective tissue, and the production of the skin and hair pigment called melanin.
Iron Utilization
Approximately 90% of the copper in the blood is incorporated into a compound called ceruloplasmin, which is a transport protein responsible for carrying copper to tissues that need the mineral. In addition to its role as a transport protein, ceruloplasmin also acts as an enzyme, catalyzing the oxidation of minerals, most notably iron.
The oxidation of iron by ceruloplasmin is necessary for iron to be bound to its transport protein (called transferrin) so that it can be carried to tissues where it is needed. Because copper is necessary for the utilization of iron, iron deficiency anemias may be a symptom of copper deficiency.
Elimination of Free Radicals
Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is a copper-dependent enzyme that catalyzes the removal of superoxide radicals from the body. Superoxide radicals are generated during normal metabolism, as well as when white blood cells attack invading bacteria and viruses (a process called phagocytosis). If not eliminated quickly, superoxide radicals cause damage to cell membranes. When copper is not present in sufficient quantities, the activity of superoxide dismutase is diminished, and the damage to cell membranes caused by superoxide radicals is increased. When functioning in this enzyme, copper works together with the mineral zinc, and it is actually the ratio of copper to zinc, rather than the absolute amount of copper or zinc alone, that helps the enzyme function properly.
Development of Bone & Connective Tissue
Copper is also a component of lysyl oxidase, an enzyme that participates in the synthesis of collagen and elastin, two important structural proteins found in bone and connective tissue. Tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme, converts tyrosine to melanin, which is the pigment that gives hair and skin its color.
Melanin Production
As a part of the enzymes cytochrome c oxidase, dopamine hydroxylase, and Factor IV, copper plays a role in energy production, the conversion of dopamine to norepinephrine and blood clotting, respectively. Copper is also important for the production of the thyroid hormone called thyroxine and is necessary for the synthesis of phospholipids found in myelin sheaths that cover and protect nerves.
What are deficiency symptoms for copper?
Because copper is involved in many functions of the body, copper deficiency produces an extensive range of symptoms. These symptoms include iron deficiency anemia, ruptured blood vessels, osteoporosis, joint problems, brain disturbances, elevated LDL cholesterol and reduced HDL cholesterol levels, increased susceptibility to infections due to poor immune function, loss of pigment in the hair and skin, weakness, fatigue, breathing difficulties, skin sores, poor thyroid function, and irregular heart beat.
Despite the fact that most Americans consume less than recommended amounts of copper in their diet, these symptoms of copper deficiency are relatively rare. However, certain medical conditions including chronic diarrhea, celiac sprue, and Crohn's disease result in decreased absorption of copper and may increase the risk of developing a copper deficiency. In addition, copper requires sufficient stomach acid for absorption, so if you consume antacids regularly you may increase your risk of developing a copper deficiency. Inadequate copper status is also observed in children with low protein intake and in infants fed only cow's milk without supplemental copper.
What are toxicity symptoms for copper?
In recent years, nutritionists have been more concerned about copper toxicity than copper deficiency. Copper does not come from copper plumbing.
Excessive intake of copper when zinc levels are also low, may be a contributing factor in many medical conditions..
Postpartum depression has also been linked to high levels of copper. ( I think it's linked with the post partum) This is because copper concentrations increase throughout pregnancy to approximately twice normal values, and it may take up to three months after delivery for copper concentrations to normalize. Since excess copper is excreted through bile, copper toxicity is most likely to occur in individuals with liver disease or other medical conditions in which the excretion of bile is compromised.
The toxic effects of high tissue levels of copper are seen in patients with Wilson's disease, a genetic disorder characterized by copper accumulation in various organs due to the inadequate synthesis of ceruloplasmin (the protein that transports copper through the blood) by the liver. Wilson's disease primarily effects the liver, kidneys, and brain causing degenerative physiological changes (including cirrhosis of the liver, muscular rigidty and spastic contraction, and emotional disturbances) that are fatal if untreated. The treatment of Wilson's disease involves avoidance of foods rich in copper and any supplements containing copper and drug treatment with chelating agents that remove the excess copper from the body.
In 2000, the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences established the following Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs)for copper:
- 0-12 months: not possible to establish a TUL, sources of copper must be from food and formula only
- 1-3 years: 1000 micrograms
- 4-8 years: 1000 micrograms
- 9-13 years: 5000 micrograms
- 14-18 years: 8000 micrograms
- 19 years and older: 10,000 micrograms
- Pregnant women 14-18 years: 8000 micrograms
- Pregnant women 19 years and older: 10,000 micrograms
- Lactating women 14-18 years: 8000 micrograms
- Lactating women 19 years and older: 10,000 micrograms
How do cooking, storage, or processing affect copper?
It has been written that some Foods that require long-term cooking can also have their copper content substantially reduced. This is nonsense, cooking does not affect their original copper content. There is also no evidence that the processing of whole grains dramatically reduces copper content. In wheat, for example, the conversion of the whole grain into 66% extraction wheat flour (where 34% of the original grain is removed from the flour and discarded) results in a drop of about 70% in the original copper that was present. So what? You eat the chaff. If the copper was available in the soil it would be in the plant.
Many vegetables and whole grains now appear to be lower in copper than they were during the mid-1900's. The depletion of copper from soils is believed to be responsible for this lowered amount of copper.
Which factors might contribute to a deficiency of copper?
Unlike most minerals, copper appears to undergo absorption up into the body from the stomach. Proper levels of stomach acid are important for this absorption. For this reason, individuals with compromised stomach acid (hypochlorhydria) may be at increased risk of copper deficiency.
Because zinc can compete with copper in the small intestine and interfere with its absorption, persons who supplement with inappropriately high levels of zinc and lower levels of copper may increase their risk of copper deficiency.
What medications affect copper?
Oral contraceptives (birth control pills) increase the absorption of copper.
Copper may enhance the anti-inflammatory effects of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications including etodolac (Lodine), ibuprofen, nabumetone (Relafen), naproxen, and oxaprozin.
The following medications may cause a decrease in copper levels:
- AZT (Azidothymidine, Zidovudine, Retrovir) is used in the treatment of HIV infection and AIDS. AZT may reduce blood levels of copper.
- Famotidine (Pepcid, Pepcid AD) and Nizatidine (Axid, Axid AR) belong to the class of drugs known as histamine blockers, which prevent the release of acid into the stomach and are used in the treatment of ulcers and acid indigestions. Because copper requires sufficient stomach acid for absorption, long-term use of famotidine may lead to copper deficiency.
- Antacids (for example, Tums) may reduce copper absorption by decreasing the amount of hydrochloric acid in the stomach.
- Penicillamine (Cuprimine, Depen) is a chelating agent used to reduce toxic copper deposits in people with Wilson's disease.
How do other nutrients interact with copper?
Copper is known to react with a variety of other nutrients, including iron, zinc, molybdenum, sulfur, selenium, and vitamin C. However, with respect to food, we haven't seen research evidence showing that other nutrients—including iron and zinc—interfere with absorption of copper. Similarly, while copper is known to interact with a variety of minerals once it has been absorbed up into the body, we have not seen research showing food-related problems in this regard. The situation is somewhat different, however, when it comes to dietary supplements that often provide minerals (or vitamins) in much higher doses than can be obtained from food. There's some evidence, although not conclusive, that zinc supplements, when taken at 50 milligrams or more on a daily basis over an extended period of time, can lower availability of copper. There's also some evidence (once again not conclusive) that high supplemental doses of vitamin C—in a range approaching 1,000 milligrams or more—may decrease copper availability. While not applicable to adults, there is also some evidence that in the formula feeding of infants, too much iron in a formula can lower absorption of copper from that formula.
What health conditions require special emphasis on copper?
Copper may play a role in the prevention and/or treatment of the following health conditions:
- Allergies
- Anemia
- Baldness
- Bedsores
- Heart Disease
- HIV/AIDS
- Hypothyroid disease
- Leukemia
- Osteoporosis
- Periodontal disease
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Stomach ulcers
What forms of copper are found in dietary supplements?
As a dietary supplement, copper is primarily found in complex with organic acids like picolinic acid and gluconic acid, and amino acids like glycine and lysine. Inorganic forms of copper, like copper sulfate, are also available. All of these delivery forms have merit, and the choice of a specific copper supplement often depends on the need for amino acids or organic acids that are chelated with (attached to) copper.
What foods provide copper?
Excllent sources of copper include calf's liver , crimini mushrooms , turnip greens and molasses .
Very good sources of copper include chard, spinach, sesame seeds , mustard greens, kale , summer squash , asparagus , eggplant , and cashews .
Good sources of copper include peppermint, tomatoes , sunflower seeds , ginger, green beans, potato, and tempeh .
Introduction to Nutrient Rating System Chart
In order to better help you identify foods that feature a high concentration of nutrients for the calories they contain, we created a Food Rating System. This system allows us to highlight the foods that are especially rich in particular nutrients. The following chart shows the World's Healthiest Foods that are either an excellent, very good, or good source of copper. Next to each food name, you'll find the serving size we used to calculate the food's nutrient composition, the calories contained in the serving, the amount of copper contained in one serving size of the food, the percent Daily Value (DV%) that this amount represents, the nutrient density that we calculated for this food and nutrient, and the rating we established in our rating system. For most of our nutrient ratings, we adopted the government standards for food labeling that are found in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's "Reference Values for Nutrition Labeling."Administrative and National Policy Requirements
1. A listing and description of general EPA Regulations applicable to the award of assistance agreements may be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/applicable_epa_regulations_and_description.htm.
2. Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, may be applicable to awards resulting from this announcement. Applicants selected for funding may be required to provide a copy of their proposal to their State Point of Contact (SPOC) for review, pursuant to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. This review is not required with the proposal and not all states require such a review.
3. Applicable regulations include: 40 CFR Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants). Applicable OMB Circulars include: OMB Circular A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions) relocated to 2 CFR Part 220, OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) relocated to 2 CFR Part 225, OMB Circular A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements With State and Local Governments), OMB Circular A-110 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 215, and OMB Circular A-122, (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 230
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE 2005
E.P.A. to Revoke Mining Permit
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 15, 2010
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said Friday that it was following through with its year-old plan to revoke a crucial permit for West Virginia's largest mountaintop removal mine, saying the operation would cause irreversible damage to the environment and wildlife. Arch spokeswoman Kim Link said the company will defend its permit "vigorously." She warned that if EPA follows through on the veto, the state's economy and tax base will suffer. Arch planned to invest $250 million, create 250 well-paying jobs and generate tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues "in a region that desperately needs both," she said. Link said the ruling effectively puts every U.S. business on notice that a legally issued Clean Water Act permit "can be revoked at any time according to the whims of the federal government." "Clearly, such a development would have a chilling impact on future investment and job creation," she said.
a private party may “recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites.” United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 131
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.
PRIOR APPROPRIATION RIGHTS (ARMAN POWER DAM, SPRING CREEK DAM, SLICKROCK CREEK DIVERSION DAM, ESI, IMMI,, &e.)
Supreme Court's Denial of Certiorari in Apex Oil Leaves Standing Seventh Circuit Ruling that Environmental Cleanup Injunctions are Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
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.Abandoned mine cleanup ruling vs W.Va. upheld
November 08, 2010 @ 06:30 PM
The Associated Press
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — West Virginia regulators must obtain permits when they clean up abandoned mines.
That's the decision from a federal appellate court panel Monday in a case filed by conservation groups against state Environmental Protection Secretary Randy Huffman.
Three judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed U.S. District Judge Irene Keeley's ruling requiring permits.
Keeley faulted the DEP for not setting acid mine drainage limits at 18 sites in northern West Virginia. Her January 2009 order concluded the state violated the Clean Water Act and allowed too much iron, manganese and aluminum into waterways.
Huffman argued that sets a dangerous precedent. A DEP spokeswoman did not immediately return a call to The Associated Press.
Emphatically saying what the law is, terminating the national emergency;
reforming legislation, abolishing holistic accounting & jurisprudence.
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.
Empowering Safe Lands & Watersheds
1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. Stakeholder Meetings/CEQA
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.
- REVIEW & OUTLOOK
- NOVEMBER 22, 2010
The EPA Permitorium
The agency's regulatory onslaught has stopped new power generation.
President Obama is now retrenching after his midterm rebuke, and one of the main ways he'll try to press his agenda is through the alphabet soup of the federal regulators. So a special oversight priority for the new Congress ought to be the Environmental Protection Agency, which has turned a regulatory firehose on U.S. business and the power industry in particular.
The scale of the EPA's current assault is unprecedented, yet it has received almost no public scrutiny. Since Mr. Obama took office, the agency has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules.
COMING TOGETHER FOR THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT:
Department of Energy pours funds into cleantech industry
By Dana Hull dhull@mercurynews.com Posted: 11/14/2010When Congress passed the landmark stimulus bill in 2009, more than $90 billion was targeted at clean energy -- the largest investment of federal dollars in the energy sector ever. Nearly $3 billion was awarded to the Bay Area from the Department of Energy alone.
The infusion of money came at a critical juncture, filling a void when the global financial crisis and U.S. recession made other sources of funding hard to come by.
The money ranged from a $1.37 billion loan guarantee for Oakland-based BrightSource Energy, which broke ground on its Ivanpah solar power plant in California's Mojave desert last month, to manufacturing tax credits and dozens of direct grants to local cleantech companies, universities, labs and cities. San Jose will use stimulus funds to replace 1,500 streetlights with energy-efficient and programmable LED lights.
"Without a doubt, this is probably one of the clearest successes of the Obama administration," said Steve Westly, a venture capitalist who invests in several cleantech companies. "In the middle of the recession it was hard for companies to get credit, and the DOE stepped in at the right time. It was stunningly smart, and the private sector followed in massive ways."
While the Department of Energy used stimulus dollars to fund mundane projects such as appliance rebates and weatherization assistance, it is also funneling money into fast-evolving cleantech industries, from electric vehicle battery and component manufacturing plants to advanced biofuels. The Recovery Act earmarks $4.5 billion to modernize the electric grid, $2.4 billion for carbon capture and storage, $2 billion for science research and $1.6 billion for renewables like biomass, solar and wind -- emerging sectors with a lot of Silicon Valley players.
"One of the big things we want to do is re-establish cleantech manufacturing," said Matt Rogers, a Piedmont resident and McKinsey consultant who managed the DOE's Recovery Act dollars. "We are not a substitute for, but a complement to, the venture capital community, and it's a very competitive process."
Competitive is an understatement. The department received more than 30,000 requests for funding, 80 percent of which were rejected. Several Silicon Valley cleantech companies hired consultants, often at considerable expense, to polish their applications, which usually required a "narrative" describing the company's technology, leadership team and business model as well as technical documents. Some applications ran more than 2,000 pages; some consultants commanded fees above half a million dollars.
The DOE's disbursement of Recovery Act funds has its critics. In September, Sen. Dianne Feinstein sent Energy Secretary Steven Chu a letter questioning why California, which has 12 percent of the nation's population, received only 6.6 percent of the money the department had available from the stimulus bill.
In Silicon Valley, much of the grumbling has centered on the lack of speed. The Energy Department is not designed to handle requests for loans and grants quickly, and many have urged the department to streamline the process.
"If there is a concern, it's that the DOE is not currently set up to operate at the speed of business, particularly the technology business," said Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. "When you take 18 to 24 months, that's three to four business cycles in Silicon Valley."
Coulomb Technologies, a Campbell start-up that makes charging stations for electric vehicles, first applied for an Energy Department grant in May 2009. Months passed, and by the fall CEO Richard Lowenthal heard it was likely out of the running.
But in January, the company received a letter from the Energy Department that essentially said: We like your application but we want to see some changes. Can Coulomb get formal agreements in place with three automakers? And with nine cities? In 45 days?
"If you think the DOE is just going to hand you a check -- it's not like that," said Lowenthal, who hired a team of people to manage Coulomb's application. "They make you earn that money. But I'm not complaining--they are spending public dollars."
Coulomb scrambled and nailed down partnerships with Ford, Chevrolet and smart USA. The work was worth it: the company was awarded a $15 million grant to install 5,000 residential and public charging stations in nine geographically diverse regions: The Bay Area, Austin, Detroit, Los Angeles, Orlando, New York, Redmond, Wash., Sacramento and Washington, D.C. Coulomb received its first DOE check in June of this year, 13 months after applying. On Tuesday, the company is scheduled to install the first of its charging stations funded by the grant in San Francisco.
"We had to prove that the electric vehicles were coming," said Lowenthal. "I see the DOE as an early adopter customer who is helping us to scale, and they are creating an electric vehicle industry in the United States."
Soladigm, a Milpitas start-up that makes energy-efficient windows, was awarded a $3.47 million grant to take its window technology out of the lab and into production.
"We are moving at a fast pace as a company, and this grant will help us go faster," said Soladigm CEO Rao Mulpuri. "We'll hire scientists that we couldn't have otherwise, and we'll get to commercialization quicker."
The Bay Area is widely regarded as the epicenter of cleantech in the United States, followed by Los Angeles, because of venture capital investment. California attracted $2.1 billion in venture capital in 2009, according to the Cleantech Group, far more than any other state.
But as Recovery Act dollars are doled out across the country, local cleantech companies have also benefitted in indirect ways. Several of the nation's leading utilities were awarded significant Energy Department grants to help them modernize the electric grid. In turn, they've hired Silicon Valley smart grid start-ups like eMeter in San Mateo and Silver Spring Networks in Redwood City.
AltaRock Energy in Sausalito, a geothermal company backed by Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, was awarded a $21.4 million grant to demonstrate its technology near Bend, Ore.
"Venture capitalists and the Department of Energy are both believers in trying to take a vision and turning it into a reality," said AltaRock CEO Don O'Shei. "VCs put their faith in technology, and see it as a way to change the economic landscape. The government is also thinking about the environment, energy independence and national security, and they want to catalyze technologies that will create whole new industries. If you look forward five years, and this is successful, the money will be like space program money."
“Toxic” doesn't do justice to Iron Mountain runoff
Iron Mountain Mine strategy outlines specific action to ensure a protective remedy within the Superfund statutory and regulatory framework, as established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Opportunities to decrease the environmental footprint and maximize the environmental outcome of a cleanup exist throughout a project life. Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Remediation Strategy sets out current regulation of the Superfund Remedial Program to eliminate the demand placed on the EPA during delisting.
Many of the strategic actions can be addressed through policy and guidance compliance, resource development, and attention to the rule of law:
- Maximize use of renewable energy to power site operations, and identify methods for increasing energy efficiency;
- Remedy optimization starting in fiscal year 2010;
- Maximize efficient use of natural resources and energy during remedial actions;
- Integrate energy sources and encourage best operational practices
- Perfect and deploy technology for the reuse of treated water and increase potable water supply and irrigation with conservation, recharge of aquifers;
- Identify additional onsite or offsite uses of materials or energy otherwise considered waste;
- Include language in statements of work for removal action, remedial design, and remedial action procurement contracts; and
- Help communities establish networks and training programs that enable citizens to gain proficiency and expertise.
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#ixzz11HJZkgsS28 USC 84 - Sec. 84. California
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
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.”
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE IS IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Treasury puts AIG TARP loss at $5 billion
Posted by Colin Barr October 5, 2010 3:51 pm
The government's most controversial bailout is still under water, if just barely.
Treasury said Tuesday in its two-year retrospective on the Troubled Asset Relief Program that the net cost of TARP's AIG ( AIG ) bailout at current market prices is $5.1 billion. The cost of the AIG bailout has been subject of considerable head scratching in recent days, with TARP winding down and the terms of federal assistance to AIG changing for the umpteenth time .
Moody's Investors Service affirmed American International Group's (AIG) A3 long-term issuer rating and negative outlook, reflecting the rating agency's concerns about the possible end of government support for the insurer.
The Moody's announcement comes in the wake of AIG's announcement of its plan to repay the U.S. Government.
Under the plan, AIG said it would repay its $20 billion direct debt to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and the $26 billion in interest the FRBNY has in two special purpose vehicles (SPVs) using its own resources and proceeds from other assets, including an initial public offering of American International Assurance Co. Ltd (AIA) on the Hong King Stock Exchange and proceeds from the $15.5 billion sale of American Life Insurance Co. (ALICO) to MetLife Inc.
Additionally, as part of the plan, $49.1 billion of preferred shares held by the Treasury Department would be converted into about 1.66 billion shares of AIG common stock. The Treasury will then sell the shares to the public over time.
Bruce Ballentine, Moody's lead analyst for AIG, said in a statement, “The proposed repayment plan signals AIG's progress in stabilizing its core insurance operations and exiting noncore businesses. It also points the way toward a sustainable capital structure.”
However, Moody's added that the plan “hastens the end of explicit government support for AIG, which has been an important consideration in the company's ratings.”
Moody's noted that the government will retain significant ownership of AIG for the near term, but the rating agency said it “believes that the ownership stake and implicit support will decline over the next couple of years. Therefore, the ratings of AIG and its subsidiaries will increasingly depend on their stand-alone credit profiles, raising the risk of downgrades if the credit metrics do not improve as expected.”
To attain a stable rating, Moody's said AIG must improve the intrinsic credit profiles of Chartis and SunAmerica Financial Group (SFG). AIG must also exit or de-risk noncore businesses, maintain robust liquidity within its major operations, and develop a standalone capital structure consistent with the company's current ratings.
Moody's said AIG could be downgraded if it fails to “improve certain credit metrics of the core insurance operations, such as profitability, reserve adequacy at Chartis and investment performance at SFG.”
Retention of noncore business risks that could strain capital and liquidity, and an inadequate standalone capital structure could also lead to a downgrade, Moody's said.
- BUSINESS
- NOVEMBER 21, 2010, 1:37 P.M. ET
AIG Puts Rail-Car Arm Up for Sale
BY SERENA NG AND ANUPREETA DAS
American International Group Inc. has put its rail-car subsidiary on the auction block, another small step by the giant insurer as it seeks to shed noncore assets to repay its bailout and regain independence from government ownership.
AIG Rail Services Inc., a Chicago business that is part of AIG's financial-services division, was set up around five years ago and provides rail-car leases and equipment financing to shipping companies, railroads and others in the North American rail industry. The company, a relatively small player in this space, leases out tank cars and freight cars used for transporting fuel, commodities, building materials and ...
Nov. 19, 2010, 11:53 a.m. EST
Fitch affirms AIG's 'BBB' issuer default rating
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Fitch Ratings on Friday affirmed American International Group Inc.'s /quotes/comstock/13*!aig /quotes/nls/aig ( AIG 42.73 , +0.17 , +0.40% ) long-term issuer default rating at BBB and upgraded the ratings on the company's hybrid securities to BB- from B. The ratings agency noted that AIG's financial profile, when viewed without the the benefit of government involvement, has improved. "The upgrade of the ratings on AIG's subordinated hybrid securities reflects Fitch's reduced concerns about the potential for AIG to elect contractually available interest deferral options attached to these securities," it said. The outlook is stable.
EPA Observes Children's Health Month
Dam Inspection By Owner
9. Compliance With Applicable Law. The Site Operator shall comply with all
applicable federal and state laws as provided in the SOW. The activities conducted pursuant to
this Consent Decree, if approved by the Oversight Agency, shall be considered to be
consistent with the NCP.Resource Record Details
Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners
SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT CHALLENGES
The Safe Watershed Reform-Act (SWR) sets a vision for the watersheds of the United States to be safe. While we have certainly made progress toward that vision since 1972, we face challenges in attaining it.
In 1972 when the CWA was enacted, traditional point sources were thought to be the dominant cause of pollution. Now we have a better understanding of safe watersheds.
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.
HARD 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).
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 WATERSHEDS 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 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 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 AND STATES will also explore opportunities to better integrate sustainable practices into policies and programs; for instance: energy-neutral wastewater treatment, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and water reuse.
EPA will seek solutions 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 regulatory programs EPA and States fund communities meaningful steps to reduce OR ELIMINATE 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, industry and communities must find a better means to addressing this problem on the critical path to success. EPA will work in partnership with states AND COMMUNITIES to better manage excess nutrient enrichment and promote state accountability frameworks that include publicly-available, science-based, state nutrient reduction implementation activities that are watershed-based and have 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 SEPTEMBER 2010 - 4
• Systematically assess 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 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 – September 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 – September 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 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 San Francisco Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and the Everglades as a demonstration for improved monitoring of restoration progress. Success in cleaning up the Everglades, San Francisco and Chesapeake Bay watersheds 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
1 Work with states to and communities to carry out more strategic and effective implementation of watershed-based plans;
2 Develop reasonable assurance guidelines regarding watersheds;
3 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;
4 Use market-based tools where appropriate to improve watersheds;
5 Implement all of the above actions in conjunction with states and communities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and other federal agencies to execute the President's Executive Orders.
In addition, 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;
Keep it Safe – Safe Watersheds Reform-Act Public Discussion September 2010 7
EPA seeks to increase protection of our watersheds by reducing current loadings and preparing for substantial predicted increases associated with development, urbanization, 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 help communities protect and restore 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 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 and prevent another disaster.
Key EPA Actions:
• Transfer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which will streamline the regulatory authority;
• 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 guidance to currently unregulated areas and establish performance standards for storm water discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites that result in reduced discharge, including through the use of green infrastructure techniques;
• Develop guidance to reduce pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. ;
• Audit point source programs;
• Evaluate implications of study currently underway within EPA's Office of Research and Development;
• Develop guidance for cooling water intakes at over 1200 power plants and manufacturing facilities; and
• Work in partnership with states and communityies to better manage excess nutrient enrichment in surface waters, including:
Public Discussion Draft – September 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 guidance to assist authorities in standards for nutrients;
• Improving public understanding of the 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 must make a substantial shift in 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, etc.e. 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 must develop 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 must also develop a framework for encouraging and facilitating more integrated watershed management approaches at the state and local level, and 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 participation, 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 considering the incorporation of non-traditional or green infrastructure alternatives in 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 – September 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.
Federal School Grants For College students
lonad News
Some of the government grant-making agencies are United states doe, Department of Education, Department of Commerce , Department of Agriculture, etc. ...
See all stories on this topic »
News Ezines » Federal School Grants For Students
By JohnDeSouza
Some of the us government grant-making agencies are Department of energy, Department of Education, Department of Commerce , Department of Agriculture, and so forth. Student studying through online can also get some financial assistance ...
News Ezines - http://newsezines.990m.com/Paid Survey Empire » Federal School Grants For University students
By JohnDeSouza
Some of the federal government grant-making agencies are Us department of energy, Department of Education, Department of Commerce , Department of Agriculture, and so on. Student studying through online will also have some financial ...
Paid Survey Empire - http://paidsurveyempire.com/Shasta's Masonic Lodge is the oldest in California
Record-Searchlight (blog)
The current brick building it calls home at 15344 Main Street in Shasta was built in 1854 soon after the disastrous 1853 fire that almost burned down every ...
See all stories on this topic »who stinks?
Interlakes Special Recreation Management Area
A land exchange with the timber company enabled the BLM to consolidate alternate “checkerboard” sections of land in a popular off-roading area of western Shasta County. Addition of the 9,000 acres to the recreation opened up legal access to even more riding areas. BLM also used the newly acquired lands provide alternate riding areas, improving natural resource protection.
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
sic utere tuo, ut alienum non laedas, which means “use your own (property) so as not to harm another.”
SPRING CREEK WATERSHED AND IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
2 MINERS & 8000 ACRES OF LAND
[California] IRON MOUNTAIN MINE (CAD980498612)
ARMAN, TED W 2010-0021996 RESCISSION 7/22/2010
Case CIVMSC07-00955 - HUTCHENS VS LIGHTHORSE VENTURES LLC ET AL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT HON. JUDGE ZUNIGA
1) Did the gold vein systems of the Klamath Mountains and the Sierra Nevada foothills develop jointly during late Upper Jurassic to late Lower Cretaceous or (how) did the mineralizing regime change with the separation of both geomorphologic units? 2) Did the vein formation occur as a single continuous event (cf. Snow et al., 2008) or as multiple events (e.g., Elder and Cashman, 1992)? 3) If there is a unifying geological model to explain the genesis of the Mother Lode and the Klamath Mountains gold deposits, why did the Sierra Nevada foothills get mineralized more intense than the Klamath Mountains (with respect to the gold production rates)?
Boulder Creek/ Arman Dam Environmental Permit Procurement
Implementation Plan
This document provides a list of environmental permits required for implementation of the Boulder Creek Debris Removal project and describes the permit procurement and implementation requirements.
Agency
Environmental
Permit
Need
for
Permit
Permit Application Procurement Requirements
Timeframe
Implementation
Federal
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Construction in waters of
the U.S. or wetlands
1.) Conduct wetland delineation;
2.) Prepare Corps application; and 3.) Submit to Corps
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions
U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered species habitat
Prepare Biological Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered fish species including Fall Run Salmon and Steelhead
Prepare Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
State
California Department of Fish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601)
Construction work in or on streambanks
Prepare and submit notification for streambed alteration agreement
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and notify contractor
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water
Quality Certification
Construction in waters of the U.S. or wetlands
Prepare and
submit application for water quality certification
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and implement Best Management Practices
Local
Shasta County
Tree Permit
Removal of Oak Trees
Prepare and submit tree mitigation plan
30 days
Implement Mitigation
Arman Dam Environmental Permit Procurement and Implementation Plan
This document provides a list of environmental permits required for implementation of the Arman Dam modification project and describes the permit procurement and implementation requirements.
Agency
Environmental
Permit
Need
for
Permit
Permit Application Procurement Requirements
Timeframe
Implementation
Federal
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Construction in waters of
the U.S. or wetlands
1.) Conduct wetland delineation;
2.) Prepare Corps application; and 3.) Submit to Corps
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions
U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered species habitat
Prepare Biological Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered fish species including Fall Run Salmon and Steelhead
Prepare Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
State
California Department of Fish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601)
Construction work in or on streambanks
Prepare and submit notification for streambed alteration agreement
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and notify contractor
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water
Quality Certification
Construction in waters of the U.S. or wetlands
Prepare and
submit application for water quality certification
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and implement Best Management Practices
Local
Shasta County
Tree Permit
Removal of Oak Trees
Prepare and submit tree mitigation plan
30 days
Implement Mitigation
Agency
Environmental
Permit
Need
for
Permit
Permit Application Procurement Requirements
Timeframe
Implementation
Federal
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Construction in waters of
the U.S. or wetlands
1.) Conduct wetland delineation;
2.) Prepare Corps application; and 3.) Submit to Corps
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions
U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered species habitat
Prepare Biological Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered fish species including Fall Run Salmon and Steelhead
Prepare Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
State
California Department of Fish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601)
Construction work in or on streambanks
Prepare and submit notification for streambed alteration agreement
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and notify contractor
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water
Quality Certification
Construction in waters of the U.S. or wetlands
Prepare and
submit application for water quality certification
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices
Reclamation Board
Floodplain Encroachment Permit
Construction in the floodplain of Miners Ravine
Conduct HEC Analysis and Prepare application for permit
90 days
Comply with permit conditions
Local
Minnesota
Tree Permit
Removal of oak trees
Prepare and submit tree mitigation plan
30 days
Implement mitigation
Sections:
Purpose.
Water reclamation policy.
Definitions.
Water reclamation master plan.
Procedures.
Sanctions.
Validity.
Purpose.
The State policies described in Water Code Sections 461 and 13510 are in the best interest of the Iron Mountain Mines and the Township of Minnesota . The majority of jurisdictions in Shasta County have adopted measures to promote water reclamation. This chapter is necessary to protect the common water supply of the region which is vital to public health and safety, and to prevent endangerment of public and private property. Shasta County is highly dependent on limited domestic water for domestic, agricultural and industrial uses. The reliability of the supply of domestic water is uncertain. By developing and utilizing reclaimed water, the need for exportable water can be eliminated. In light of these circumstances, certain uses of potable water may be considered unreasonable or to constitute a nuisance where reclaimed water is available or production of reclaimed water is unduly impaired. Reclaimed water would be more readily available in seasons of drought when the supply of potable water for nonessential uses may be uncertain.
Water reclamation policy.
It is the policy of the Iron Mountain Mines and the Township of Minnesota that reclaimed water shall be used within the jurisdiction wherever its use is economically justified, financially and technically feasible, and consistent with legal requirements, preservation of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment.
Definitions.
The following terms are defined for purposes of this chapter:
A. “Agricultural purposes” include the growing of field and nursery crops, raw crops, trees, and vines and the feeding of fowl and livestock.
B. “Artificial lake” means a human-made lake, pond, lagoon, or other body of water that is used wholly or partly for landscape, scenic or non-contact recreational purposes.
C. “Commercial office building” means any building for office or commercial uses with water requirements which include, but are not limited to, landscape irrigation, toilets, urinals, and decorative fountains.
D. “Reclaimed water distribution system” means a piping system intended for the delivery of reclaimed water separate from and in addition to, the potable water distribution system.
E. A “greenbelt area” includes, but is not limited to, golf courses , cemeteries, parks and landscaping.
F. “Industrial process water” means water used by any industrial facility with process water requirements which include, but are not limited to, rinsing, washing, cooling and circulation, or construction.
G. “Off-site facilities” means water facilities from the source of supply to the point of connection with the on-site facilities, normally up to and including the water meter.
H. “On-site facilities” means water facilities under the control of the owner, normally downstream from the water meter.
I. “Potable water” means water which conforms to the Federal, State and local standards for human consumption.
J. “Reclaimed water” means water which, as a result of treatment of wastewater, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or controlled use that would not otherwise occur (see Water Code Section 13050(n)).
K. “Water discharge” means water deposited, released, or discharged into a sewer system from any commercial, industrial, or residential source which contains levels of any substance or substance which may cause substantial harm to any water treatment or reclamation facility or which may prevent use of reclaimed water authorized by law.
Water reclamation master plan.
A. General. Upon adoption of this chapter, the Township shall prepare and adopt by resolution, a water reclamation master plan to define, encourage, and develop the use of reclaimed water within its boundaries. The master plan shall be updated not less often than every five years.
B. Contents of the Reclamation Master Plan. The master plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Plants and Facilities. Evaluation of the location and size of present and future reclamation treatment plants, distribution pipelines, pump stations, reservoirs, and other related facilities, including cost estimates and potential financing methods;
2. Reclaimed Water Service Areas. A designation, based on the criteria set forth in this chapter, of the areas within the Township that can or may in the future use reclaimed water in lieu of potable water. Reclaimed water uses may include, but are not limited to, the irrigation of greenbelt and agricultural areas, filling of artificial lakes, and appropriate industrial and commercial uses;
3. Designate Tributary Areas. For each water reclamation facility identified in the master plan, designate proposed tributary areas. Within such areas, discharges to the sewage system shall be subject to permitting, monitoring and control measures to protect public health, safety and public and private property;
4. Quality of Water to be Reclaimed. For each water reclamation treatment facility, evaluate water quality with respect to the effect on anticipated uses of reclaimed water to be served by each treatment facility. Evaluate sources of waste discharge and sewer inflow that may, directly or cumulatively, substantially contribute to adverse water quality conditions (including but not limited to total dissolved solids, sodium, chloride and boron) in reclaimed water;
5. Tributary Protection Measures. Develop recommended control measures and management practices for each designated tributary area to maintain or improve the quality of reclaimed water. Such control measures may include capital improvements to the sewer collection system and waste discharge restrictions for industrial, commercial and residential discharges;
6. Mandatory Reclaimed Water Use. For each reclaimed water service area, evaluate whether greenbelt irrigation, agricultural irrigation, commercial office buildings, filling of artificial lakes, or industrial processes shall be limited to the use of reclaimed water. As appropriate, mandate construction of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities in new and existing developments for current or future reclaimed water use as a condition of any development approval or continued water service, if future reclamation facilities are proposed in the master plan that could adequately serve the development. Identify resources and adopt measures to assist water users in the financing of necessary conversions;
7. Rules and Regulations. Establish by resolution, general rules and regulations governing the use and distribution of reclaimed water;
8. Public Awareness Program. Establish a comprehensive water reclamation public awareness program;
9. Coordination Among Agencies. An examination of the potential for initiating a coordinated effort between the Township and other regional agencies to share in the production and utilization of reclaimed water.
Procedures.
A. Existing Potable Water Service.
1. Preliminary Determination. Based upon the master plan, upon the designation of each reclaimed water service area or the commencement of the design of new reclaimed water facilities, the Township shall make preliminary determinations as to which existing potable water customers shall be converted to the use of reclaimed water. Each water customer shall be notified of the basis for a determination that conversion to reclaimed water service will be required, as well as the proposed conditions and schedule for conversion.
2. Notice. The notice of the preliminary determination, including the proposed conditions and time schedule for compliance, and a reclaimed water permit application shall be sent to the water customer by certified mail.
3. Objections – Appeals. The water customer may file a notice of objection with the Township within 30 days after of any notice of determination to comply is delivered or mailed to the customer, and may request reconsideration of the determination or modification of the proposed conditions or schedule for conversion. The objection must be in writing and specify the reason for the objection. The preliminary determination shall be final if the customer does not file a timely objection. The Township Manager or his designee, shall review the objection with the objector, and shall confirm, modify or abandon the preliminary determination.
B. Development and Water Service Approvals.
1. Conditions. Upon application by a developer, owner or water customer (herein referred to as “applicant”) for a tentative map, subdivision map, land use permit, or other development project as defined by Government Code Section 65928 the Township staff shall review the master plan and make a preliminary determination whether the current or proposed use of the subject property is required to be served with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application for a permit for such use may be required as a condition of approval of any such application, in addition to any other conditions of approval.
2. Alterations and Remodeling. On a case-by-case basis, upon application for a permit for the alteration or remodeling of multifamily, commercial or industrial structures (including, for example, hotels), the Township staff shall review the master plan and make a preliminary determination whether the subject property shall be required to be served with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application for a permit for such use, may be required as a condition of approval of the application.
3. Notice of Determination. A notice of the basis for the preliminary determination, proposed conditions of approval and schedule for compliance shall be provided to the applicant prior to approval of the development application.
C. Reclaimed Water Permit Process. Upon a final determination by the Township Manager that a property shall be served with reclaimed water, or adoption of a condition of development approval requiring use or accommodation of the use of reclaimed water, the water customer, owner or applicant shall obtain a reclaimed water permit.
1. Permit Conditions. The permit shall specify the design and operational requirements for the applicant's water distribution facilities and schedule for compliance and shall require compliance with both the California Department of Health Services Wastewater Reclamation Criteria (see California Code of Administrative Regulations, Title 22), and requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2. Plan Approval. Plans for the reclaimed and potable water distribution systems for the parcel shall be reviewed by the Township Manager or his designee and a field inspection conducted before the permit is granted.
3. Permit Issuance. Upon approval of plans, the permit shall be issued. Reclaimed water shall not be supplied to a property until inspection by the Township Manager or his designee determines that the applicant is in compliance with the permit conditions.
D. Temporary Use of Potable Water. Upon the approval of the Township Manager or his designee, potable water may be made available temporarily. Before the applicant receives temporary potable water, a water reclamation permit must be obtained for new on-site distribution facilities. Prior to commencement of reclaimed water service, an inspection of the on-site facilities will be conducted to verify that the facilities have been maintained and are in compliance with the reclaimed water permit and current requirements for service. Upon verification of compliance, reclaimed water shall be served to the parcel for the intended use. If the facilities are not in compliance, the applicant shall be notified of the corrective actions necessary and shall have at least 30 days to take such actions.
E. Reclaimed Water Rate. The rate charged for reclaimed water shall be established by resolution of the Township.
Environmental Mine Site Assessment for Iron Mountain Mine, California
Katie Walraven, J&D Environmental Solutions, LLC
February 22, 2006
Executive Summary
Iron Mountain Mine is positioned in the Shasta Mining District near Redding , California . It has been mined for iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc, and pyrite during its operation from 1860 to 1963. The site was declared a Superfund site in 1983 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has undergone remediation projects including the construction of water treatment plants, diversion of surface water, and cappings. The mine is a massive sulfide deposit set in a rhyolitic country rock. Oxidation of iron sulfides at Iron Mountain Mine releases sulphuric acid fumes into the air and adds an unknown amount of contamination into sediments. Tons of acid mine drainage seeped into both surface water and groundwater. The lowest pH in the world of negative 3.6 was recorded at the Richmond mine on the Iron Mountain Mine site. Local fish species and residents have been affected by the contamination of the water, resulting in much litigation. Future remediation of the site is pending while studies are being conducted on sediments and continued water treatment options by the EPA.
Introduction
Iron Mountain Mine is located in northern California , in the Shasta Mining District (Figure 1). The nearest city is Redding, which is 9 kilometers to the southeast of the mine site (Banfield 2004) . The site is located in the Klamath Mountains, which stretch from northwest California to southern Oregon (Banfield 2004) .
Iron Mountain Mine was operational from 1860 to 1963. During those years it was mined for iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc, and pyrite (Banfield 2004) . At one time, Iron Mountain Mine was the largest copper producer in California and the sixth largest copper producer in the United States (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . Mining included both surface pit mining and underground mining. The mining of a gossan cap began in 1879 and the underground mining for copper started in 1897 (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . The mountain itself was fractured during the course of the mining process, which allowed for the weathering of materials inside the mountain (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) .
Iron Mountain Mine was declared a Superfund site by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1983 (Merchant 2004) . Table 1 shows an environmental and historical account of the site. From 1988 to 1994 emergency remediation of the waste water at Iron Mountain Mine was conducted using a lime neutralization treatment plant (Sugarek 2005) . An acid neutralization plant utilizing a lime and sulfide High Density Sludge process was also built (U.S.G.S. 2005) . Water treatment plants were later made for water with sources at Boulder Creek and Old Mine/Mine No. 8, both located on Iron Mountain (Sugarek 2005) . The treatment plants currently in place on the Iron Mountain Mine site have been operating since 1994 (Merchant 2004) . Since the beginning of water treatment at the site through 2003, over 1.3 billion gallons of acid mine drainage (AMD) have been treated (Merchant 2004) . The treatment has resulted in an 80% reduction of the copper content in the water, and a 90% reduction in the zinc concentration (Merchant 2004) . As of the completion of the Slickrock Creek Retention Reservoir in 2002, more than 95% of all acid mine drainage no longer enters the environment (Merchant 2004) .
Table 1. Mining and environmental activities at Iron Mountain (modified from (Nordstrom and Alpers 1998) ).
Year
Activity
1860s
Discovery of massive gossan outcropping
1879
Silver discovered in gossan and mining begins
1897
Mountain Copper Co. acquires property and under- ground mining begins
1902
Suing for vegetation damage from smelting activities
1907
Smelting ends and ore is transported to Martinez , CA , for processing
1928
California Fish and Game Commission files complaint regarding tailings dam
1939
State initiates water quality and fish toxicity studies
1943
Shasta Dam, upstream from Iron Mountain outflows, is completed
1950
Keswick Dam, downstream from Iron Mountain outflows, is completed
1955-1962
Open-pit mining of pyrite at Brick Flat for sulfuric acid production
1963
Spring Creek Debris Dam is completed, regulating outflow of acid mine waters to the Sacramento River
1983
Iron Mountain listed on National Priorities List (NPL) for EPA Superfund, ranking as the third-largest polluter in the State of California
1986-1998
Four Records of Decision by EPA have instituted several remedial activities that include partial capping, surface-water diversions, tailings removal, and lime neutralization of the most acidic, metal-rich flows, reducing copper and zinc loads by 80-90%
Additional remediation also included water management strategies of capping and diverting the surface water (Sugarek 2005) . AMD solutions are stored at Keswick Reservoir and are periodically scheduled to be released at the same time as waters from the Shasta Dam, in order to dilute the contaminated water. At times of heavy rain or when the Spring Creek Reservoir reaches capacity, the AMD at the Spring Creek Dam is sometimes uncontrollably spilled into the rest of the waters in the area without the extra dilution from the Shasta Dam waters (Sugarek 2005) .
Site Description
The Iron Mountain Mine site contains open pit mines, underground workings, waste rock dumps, and piles of ore tailings (Banfield 2004) , covering 4,400 acres (Merchant 2004) . There were no site maps of the actual site available for inclusion in this paper. Only one site map has been located, and the publication is not available for public perusal from the internet. The site itself is a massive hydrothermal sulfide deposit (Banfield 2004) set in Balaklala rhyolite overlying Copley greenstone (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . The sulfide deposit, Balaklala rhyolite, and Copley greenstone are all Devonian in age (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . Pyrite makes up more than 95% of the sulfide deposit, with chalcopyrite, quartz and sphalerite (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . The pyrite, when oxidized, releases copper, cadmium, and zinc metals.
The extensive watershed surrounding Iron Mountain eventually extends to San Francisco , California . Boulder Creek to the north of the Iron Mountain Mine and Slickrock Creek to the south join and flow southeast 3 kilometers to Spring Creek (Figure 1). Spring Creek then flows seven more kilometers before reaching the Spring Creek Reservoir, where water travels through the Spring Creek Dam and continues on to the Keswick Reservoir. The Keswick Reservoir is on the Sacramento River, which eventually leads to the San Francisco Bay 360 kilometers away (NOAA 1989) .
Site Impacts
Iron Mountain Mine's impacts on the surrounding environment were previously tremendous on water and the culture, but through remediation efforts the contamination is limited now predominantly to sediments. The only air impact, onsite or offsite, mentioned in published reports was the premature death of trees on the mountain due to sulphuric acid fumes from the oxidized pyrite (NOAA Central Library 2002) . Further air impacts existed before the early 1900s because smelting of the ore was done onsite, but after 1907 the ore was shipped off the site for smelting (Nordstrom and Alpers 1998) .
No onsite analysis of sediments was available. However, Table 2 presents a table of sediment metal concentration offsite as compared to the calculated chronic daily intake. The focus of the sediment report was on offsite impacts, such as at the Spring Creek Arm of the watershed. The report documented sediment accumulation in the Spring Creek Reservoir and Keswick Reservoir, but provided no data for exactly how the sediment came to rest in the reservoirs or the quantitative elevation and slope of the mountain (U.S.G.S. 2005) . The mountain was visually described as steeply sloped, with ridges and narrow valleys (NOAA 1989) . The contaminated sediments affect both riparian vegetation and wildlife (EPA 2004) . One study showed that the toxicity of the sediments was due not to the increased presence of copper or zinc, but reduced iron in pore waters (U.S.G.S. 2005) . No information about background metal concentrations at Iron Mountain Mine was found.
Table 2: Offsite sediment metals concentration from 2003 collection compared to chronic daily intake calculations (modified from (EPA 2004) ).
Analyte
Average Concentration (mg/kg)
Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Ingestion Dermal
Antimony
4.1
8.31E-07
--
Arsenic
168
5.19E-05
1.66E-05
Cadmium
5.3
1.19E-06
1.26E-08
Chromium
66
7E-06
--
Copper
1822
2E-04
--
Iron (%)
18.7
2E-02
--
Lead
49
2E-05
--
Nickel
57
1E-05
--
Silver
3.5
1E-06
--
Zinc
768
1E-04
--
While contaminated sediments are added to “clean” water when they are released from the Keswick Reservoir, the concern for the continuation of toxic material overflow from the Spring Creek Dam into the Keswick Reservoir and thereby the Sacramento River is still prevalent (Sugarek 2005) . Every 4 to 8 years the water at the Spring Creek Dam overflows, bringing the contaminated sediments further into the watershed (EPA 2004) . Recreational use has been limited due to both contamination and remediation, and Iron Mountain Mine and the surrounding area are currently being investigated for future uses including biking, hiking, and equestrian trails (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) .
Water quality from Iron Mountain Mine was very poor. Iron Mountain Mine boasts the world's lowest pH, with the lowest recording at negative 3.6 from water at the Richmond mine (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . This low pH is not common on Iron Mountain , but a pH of around 1 is generally recorded onsite. Table 3 shows the pH and potential contaminant concentrations from the Richmond mine in 2002. The groundwater which feeds into Boulder Creek had a pH of 2.9 (Hannula, Esposito et al. 2003) . Boulder Creek flows 34 m 3 /h to 79,500 m 3 /h during flash floods (Keith, Runnells et al. 2001) . Rainfall is also a conduit for contaminants, and between 140 and 200 centimeters fall per year, varying with elevation (Keith, Runnells et al. 2001) . Over 1 ton of acid mine drainage had been released every day from Iron Mountain Mine before its Superfund listing in 1983 (Merchant 2004) , aided in large part by the stream flow and rainfall. Native metal concentrations in the water around Iron Mountain Mine were not presented in any publications read for this assessment.
Table 3. Richmond mine 5-Way and A, B, C weirs water data in millimolar units (modified from (Banfield 2004) ).
Sample Name
Date
T (°C)
pH
Fe
Cu
Zn
SO 4 -2
02IM15-way
March-02
42
0.83
317
4.0
14.3
684
02IM1A1
March-02
42
0.83
319
4.1
14.0
665
02IM1B1
March-02
47
0.78
274
2.2
16.8
550
02IM1C1
March-02
50
0.76
288
4.7
14.3
651
02IMM B-back
March-02
45
0.83
241
2.3
17.2
586
02IM1 C-back
March-02
50
0.82
286
4.5
14.2
656
02IMM A-back
March-02
42
0.83
380
6.0
18.4
892
Offsite, however, the EPA reports very little water contamination as of 2004 (EPA 2004) . The only possible human health risks would be in case of incidental ingestion or dermal contact with the water or sediments in Spring Creek (EPA 2004) . From the 2004 EPA Record of Decision report, it seemed as if the offsite contamination was generally held in check in regards to the human population.
Cultural impact from Iron Mountain Mine is the primary grounds for litigation involving the site (Merchant 2004) . The toxic metals which have been leaching from the mine since the 1860s infected the water and sediments, thereby affecting aquatic life. Fish kills were reported as early as the 1899-1900 rainy season (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . Since 1940, over thirty-nine fish kills have been reported in the area (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . The Central Valley Chinook salmon population was listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act in 1989 and the area between Keswick Dam and the Red Bluff Dam on the Sacramento River was declared a critical spawning area (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . The steelhead trout population was also affected by increased metal concentrations in the water system (Sugarek 2005) . The fishing industries in the area cannot resume full functioning capacity until the site has been fully remediated and the fish population is sustained.
.
Known Site Management Plans
In 2000, the EPA settled litigation for the amount of $160 million to continue remediation on the Iron Mountain Mine site (Merchant 2004) . The money will ensure the continued upkeep of the water treatment plant for an indefinite period of time, presumably as long as Iron Mountain Mine needs remediation. Overall, an estimated $700 to $800 million will be spent on the project (Merchant 2004) .
Future remediation possibilities are still being investigated. A major component of the continued remediation is the completion of studies by the EPA which focuses on the area sources of AMD discharge, as well as the extent of the sediment contamination in the area (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . Such studies would be taken into consideration before more remediation was implemented. Earlier during remediation research a study on the effects of mine shaft plugging at Iron Mountain Mine resulted in the disregarding of that particular project (U.S.G.S. 2005) . In 2004 a remedy was proposed for the contaminated sediment issue, involving the movement of contaminated sediment which had collected near Spring Creek into the abandoned open pit mines at Iron Mountain Mine. The sediments most in danger of erosion would be moved first. Pending the completion of further studies of the site, no additional remediation has been planned.
Summary
The remediation projects at Iron Mountain Mine were a good beginning to the control over AMD release into the environment. There are approximately 12 million tons of deposit, disturbed by the mining, still on the mountain (EPA 2004) . This ore, left exposed to the air and water at the Iron Mountain Mine site, is enough for AMD to continue for approximately 3,000 more years (Banfield 2004) . Despite reports from the Richmond mine at Iron Mountain Mine, where water records the lowest pH in the world at negative 3.6 (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) , the EPA in its 2004 Record of Decision declared offsite water quality to be no danger to the human population (EPA 2004), but provided no quantitative data to support this decision. The impact on the environment of Iron Mountain Mine is most clearly seen in the aquatic life and vegetation in and around the site and continues to affect the area leading to the Sacramento River . One group of salmon is listed as an endangered species because of the movement of contaminated sediments from the Iron Mountain Mine site (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) .
It is recommended, based on data collected for this assessment, that no additional funding be given for the remediation of Iron Mountain Mine. If remediation efforts until 2004 continue and remediation recommended in 2004 is implemented, there should be no reason for further funds to be provided. As of 2004, there were no outstanding dangers to the humans around Iron Mountain Mine, and while the environment and aquatic life are important, they are secondary to the human health concerns at mine sites elsewhere in the United States .
Katie Walraven
kwalrave@vt.edu
References
Banfield, J. (2004). "Microbial community structure and function: a genomically-enabled case study in an acid mine drainage system." Sulfide Mineral Weathering and Acid Mine Drainage Research .
EPA (2004). EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Iron Mountain Mine : 130.
Hannula, S. R., K. J. Esposito, J. A. Chermak, D. D. Runnells, D. C. Keith and L. E. Hall (2003). "Estimating ground water discharge by hydrographs separation." Ground Water 41 (3): pp. 368-375.
Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council (2002). Final Restoration Plan for Natural Resource Injuries From Iron Mountain Mine, NOAA.
Keith, D. C., D. D. Runnells, K. J. Esposito, J. A. Chermak, D. B. Lew, S. R. Hannula, M. Watts and L. E. Hall (2001). "Geochemical models of the impact of acidic groundwater and evaporative sulfate salts on Boulder Creek and Iron Mountain, California” Applied Geochemistry 16 (7-8): pp. 947-961.
Merchant, M. (2004) "U.S. EPA, California and Shasta County officials celebrate the completion of the Slickrock Creek Retention Reservoir." Region 9: News Releases Volume , DOI:
NOAA. (1989). "Iron Mountain Mine Redding, California Region 9." from http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/170_IronMtn.pdf.
NOAA Central Library. (2002). "Damage Assessment Restoration Program (DARP) Iron Mountain Mine - General Images." NOAA Photo Library .
Nordstrom, D. K. and C. N. Alpers (1998). Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequence for environmental restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site, California . National Academy of Sciences colloquium "Geology, Mineralogy, and Human Welfare", Irvine, California, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Nordstrom, D. K., C. N. Alpers, C. J. Ptacek and D. W. Blowes (1999). "Negative pH and extremely acidic mine waters from Iron Mountain, California." Environ. Sci. Technol 34 (2): 254-258.
Sugarek, R. (2005). Iron Mountain Mine, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
USGS. (2005). "Remediating some of the world's most acidic waters at the Iron Mountain Superfund site - a tough challenge for scientists." Toxic Substances Hydrology Program , from http://toxics.usgs.gov/topics/rem_act/iron_mountain.html.
Iron Mountain Mine
Redding , California
Region 9
CAD980498612
Site Exposure Potential
Iron Mountain Mine is 14.5 km northwest of Redding , California in the foothills of the
Trinity Mountains , in the northwest Sacramento Valley (Figure 1). Iron Mountain Mine is
the southernmost mine in the West Shasta Mining District, an area of silver, gold, copper,
zinc, and iron pyrite mines. Open pit and subterranean mining activities were performed at
Iron Mountain Mine from the late 1800s to 1963. Acid mine drainage is produced at the
site as water passes through the sulfide ores and discharges through mine portals and
seeps. Secondary sources of acid mine drainage result from runoff through and over waste
rock piles, tailings piles, and other surface areas. In addition to acid, mine drainage at Iron
Mountain contains high concentrations of copper, zinc, and cadmium (CDM 1987).
NOAA Trust Habitats and Species in Site Vicinity
The closest aquatic habitat supporting NOAA trust resources is the Sacramento River below
the Keswick Dam. Below the dam, the river ranges from 120 to 180 meters wide and
averages three meters deep. The substrate consists of gravel, cobble, and bedrock. The
water quality of the Sacramento River below the dam is generally good (Helley 1989).
Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and their habitats are the NOAA trust resources
potentially impacted by the Iron Mountain site. Four races of chinook salmon use the
Sacramento River and its tributaries: the fall, late fall, winter, and spring runs. Each run
is a genetically distinct stock that migrates into the river and reproduces within specific
time periods and locations. Salmon at various life stages are found in the river during
every month of the year. The spawning population of chinook salmon in the Sacramento
River has declined steadily since the 1950s: the population was estimated to be 408,000
fish in 1953, while only 27,000 were estimated to be present in 1983. Numerous fish
kills associated with drainage from Iron Mountain Mine have been documented on the
Sacramento River (EPA 1986b). In 1969, the most recent fish kill, an estimated 200,000
adult salmon were killed (CDM 1987).
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
is currently reviewing the status of Sacramento River winter-run chinook to determine
whether listing it as a threatened species is warranted (CDM 1987). Recreational fishery
of winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River below the Keswick Dam is closed
to protect the species (Helley 1989).
Restoration of anadromous fish runs above the Keswick Dam has been considered, but
was abandoned due to contamination from the Iron Mountain Mine (Helley 1989).
Response Category: Superfund Lead
Current Stage of Site Action: RI/FS activities are continuing at the site. A Record of
Decision for interim Remedial Action was signed October 3, 1986; a cap at the site is being
implemented and creek diversion is currently under design.
EPA Site Manager
Rick Sugarek 415-974-8230
NOAA Coastal Resource Coordinator
Chip Demarest 415-974-8509
References
CDM. 1987. Draft Final Report Iron Mountain Mine Endangerment Assessment.
December 4, 1987. San Francisco : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
EPA. 1986a. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington , D.C. : Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. EPA 440/5-86-001.
EPA. 1986b. Record of Decision - Iron Mountain Mine, Redding , CA. San Francisco :
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
Helley, T., fishery biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Napa , California ,
personal communication, January 13, 1989.
Under Executive Order 13148, revised April 26, 2000 (65 FR 24599), all Federal facilities are required to comply with the provisions set forth in section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the PPA. Federal facilities are required to comply with those provisions without regard to SIC or NAICS delineations.
Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
Category
Examples of potentially affected entities
Industry ........................................ Federal Government ...................
SIC major group codes 10 (except 1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 (except 1241), or 20 through 39; industry codes 4911, 4931, or 4939 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce); or 4953 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et. seq. ), or 5169, or 5171, or 7389 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis). Federal facilities.
This table is not intended to be entities not listed in the table could also applicability criteria in part 372, subpart exhaustive, but rather provides a guide be affected. To determine whether your B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal for readers regarding entities likely to be facility is affected by this action, you Regulations. If you have any questions affected by this action. Other types of should carefully examine the regarding the applicability of this action
INTERAGENCY SUSPENSION & DEBARMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
[Official agency representatives to the Committee*]
AGENCY NAME/[EMAIL ADD.] PHONE ___ FAX_______
AMTRAK Hamilton Peterson(OIG) [202]906-4345 [301]229-1022
Petersh@AMTRAK.com
[AUSA] Alain Leibman [973]645-2793 [973]645-3497
Agriculture Peter Laub* [202]720-1554 [202]690-3561
Plaub@cfo.usda.gov
Tyson Whitney [202]720-8978 [202]690-3561
twhitney@cfo.usda.gov
Air Force Steve Shaw* [703]588-0057 [703]588-1045
Steven.shaw@pentagon.af.mil
Richard Pelletier [703]588-0049 [703]588-1045
Richard.Pelletier@pentagon.af.mil
Army Chris McCommas* [703]696-1542 [703]696-1559
Christine.McCommas@hqda.army.mil
Robert Kittel [703]696-1640 [703]696-2960
robert.kittel@us.army.mil
Broadcasting Paul Wengert [202]260-4404 [202]260-4394
Board of pwengert@ibb.gov
Governors
Centers for Sue Hensley [ 410]786-7491 [410]786-6371
Medicare and Shensley@cms.hhs.gov
Medicaid Lisa Eggleston [410]786-6130 [410]786-9188
Services Leggleston@cms.hhs.gov
Commerce Chris Makris * [202]482-3803 [202]482-1711
CMakris@doc.gov
Eric Moll [202]482-1073 [202]501-8005
Emoll1@doc.gov
Diane Canzano [202]482-1122 [202]482-5858
Dcanzano@doc.gov
Corp. for Nat. Suzanne Dupre * [202]606-5000 [202]565-2796
& Comm. Service sdupredc@cns.gov Ext. 396
Defense Mark Herbst * [703]696-0372 [703]696-0569
Mark.herbst@osd.mil
Barbara McBride [703]614-6837 [703]693-6367
Mcbrideb@osdgc.osd.mil
Philip Degen [703]697-8334 [703]614-1254
Philip.Degen@osd.mil
Defense ContractRichard Finnegan * [703]428-1819 [703]428-1364
Mgt. Agency richard.finnegan@dcma.mil
Paula Loviner [703]428-1820 [703]428-1364
paula.loviner@dcma.mil
Defense Logis- Susan Chadick* [703]767-6069 [703]767-6091
tics Agency susan.chadick@dla.mil
Normand V. Lussier [703]767-5032 [703]767-6091
normand.lussier@dla.mil
Chris Poston [703]767-5001 [703]767-5022
Christine.Poston@dla.mil
Education Ronelle Holloman [202]205-3501 [202]205-0667 Ronelle.holloman@ed.gov
Jose Otero [202]401-0342 [202]401-9528
Jose.Otero@ed.gov
Peter Wathen-Dunn * [202]401-6697 [202]401-5391
Peter.Wathen-Dunn@ed.gov or 9533
Energy Cindy Yee * [202]586-1140 [202]586-3175
CYNTHIA.YEE@pr.doe.gov
EPA Bob Meunier * [202]564-5399 [202]565-2471
meunier.robert@epa.gov
David Sims [202]564-5393 [202]565-2471
sims.david@epa.gov
Sharon Mitchell [202]564-5288 [202]565-2471
mitchell.sharon@epa.gov
Mary Willis Clarke [202]564-5388 [202]565-2472
Clarke.mary@epa.gov
Steve Silzer [202]564-5389 [202]565-2472
Silzer.Stefan@epa.gov
Suzanne Hersh [202]564-5374 [202]565-2471
hersh.suzanne@epa.gov
Export-Import Matthew Lapin* [202]565-3431 [202]565-3462
Bank of the USA matthew.lapin@exim.gov
FAA Maureen Cummings-Spickler [202]267-3181 [202]267-5261
Maureen.Cummings-Spickler@faa.gov
Fed. Deposit Steve Hanas [202]736-0729 [202]736-0420
Ins. Corp. shanas@fdic.gov
Martin Blumenthal [202]736-0539 [202]736-0420
mblumenthal@fdic.gov
Peter Somerville [202]736-0110 [202]736-0420
psomerville@fdic.gov
GSA Joseph Neurauter* [202]501-1045 [202]501-1986
joseph.neurauter@gsa.gov
Don Suda [202]501-4770 [202]501-3341
donald.suda@gsa.gov
Raywood Holmes [202]219-4301 [202]501-3341
Raywood.Holmes@gsa.gov
Amanda Wood [202]501-1762 [202]501-1944
amanda.wood@gsa.gov
Mike Ettner [202]501-0727 [202]501-0583
mike.ettner@gsa.gov
Priscilla Owens [202]501-4740 [202]219-3266
priscilla.owens@gsa.gov
Health and Diane Osterhus* [202]690-5729 [202]690-6902
Human Services diane.osterhus@hhs.gov
Nancy Weisman [202]260-4573 [202]690-8772
nancy.weisman@hhs.gov
William J. Hughes [410]786-9609 [410]786-9606
bhughes@oig.hhs.gov
Homeland Ed Broyles [202]646-3961 [202]646-4536
Security edward.broyles@dhs.gov
Elaine Eder [202]267-0125 [202]267-4581
eeder@comdt.uscg.mil
Rich Freethey [202]267-1146 [202]267-4011
rfreethey@comdt.uscg.mil
Kathy Strouss [202]772-9955
kathy.strouss@dhs.gov
Richard Sites [202]267-6478 [202]267-4011
Rsites@comdt.uscg.mil
Keith Moore-Erickson [202]267-0100 [202]267-4581
Kmoore-Erickson@comdt.uscg.mil
HUD Dane M. Narode* [202]708-2350 [202]401-5153
Dane_M._Narode@hud.gov
Travis J. Farris [202]708-2350 [202]401-5153
Travis_J._Farris@HUD.gov ext.3545
IMLS Nancy Weiss * [202]606-5414 [202]606-1077
Nweiss@imls.gov
Interior Dee Emmerich [202]208-3348 [202]219-4244
Delia_emmerich@ios.doi.gov demmer8@aol.com
Justice Larry Hailes [202]514-7925 [202]305-2465 hailes@ojp.usdoj.gov
Robert Balzer * [202]307-3577 [202]514-9028
Balzer@ojp.usdoj.gov
Barbara Corprew [202]616-0440 [202]514-0152
Barbara.corprew@usdoj.gov
Robert Watkins [202]514-3447 [202]616-0314
watkinsR@ojp.usdoj.gov
Christine Rodriguez [301]809-4903 [301]860-1837
Crodriguez@nsi3.com
Linda Fallowfield [202]305-2534 [202]307-1419
FALLOWFI@OJP.USDOJ.GOV
Labor Jeff Saylor [202]693-7282 [202]693-7290
Saylor-jeffrey@dol.gov
Ruurd Segaar [202]639-5728 [202]693-5732
Segaar-Ruurd@dol.gov
Joe Woodward [202]693-5485 [202]693-5466
woodward.joseph@dol.gov
Eric Ehrenberg [202]693-5293
ehrenberg.eric@dol.gov
Jonathan Snare [202]693-5260
snare.jonathan@dol.gov
Robert Varnell
varnell-robert@dol.gov
OMB Beth Phillips [202]395-3053 [202]395-3952
ephillip@omb.eop.gov
Gil Tran [202]395-3052 [202]395-4915
Hai_m._tran@omb.eop.gov
Tawana Webb [202]395-7586 [202]395-3952
Twebb@omb.eop.gov
NASA Jim Balinskas * [202]358-0445
jbalinsk@hq.nasa.gov
Rita Svarcas [202]358-0604 [202]358-3220
rsvarcas@mail.hq.nasa.gov
NEA Karen Elias [202]682-5746 [202]682-5572
eliask@arts.gov
NEH Heather Gottry [202]606-8300 [202]606-8600
Hgottry@neh.gov
NLRB Frank Battle [202]273-3884 [202]273-2928
Frank.Battle@nlrb.gov
Nat. Science Anita Eisenstadt * [703]292-8060 [703]292-9041
Foundation AEisenstadt@nsf.gov
Navy Willard D. Blalock * [202]685-7000 [202]685-6957
Willard.Blalock@Navy.Mil
John J. Blanchard [202]685-7000 [202]685-6957
John.Blanchard@Navy.mil
Overseas Private Eli Landy * [202]336-8418 [202]408-0297
Investment Corp Eland@opic.gov
OPM David Cope* [202]606-2851 [202]606-2153
Jdcope@opm.gov
Juan Smith [202]606-1743 [202]606-2153
JLSmith@opm.gov
Small Business Kevin Harber * [202]619-1602
Administration kevin.harber@sba.gov
Sec. & Exchange Hope H. Augustini [202]942-0904 [202]942-9625
Commission AugustiniH@sec.gov
George Brown [202]942-0828 [202]942-9625
browng@sec.gov
Social Security Phyllis Y. Smith [410]965-9518 [410]966-9310
Administration Phyllis.y.smith@ssa.gov
State Susan Catington* [703]516-1693 [703]875-6155
catingtonsm@state.gov
Treasury Angelie Jackson* [202]622-0245 [202]622-2273
Angelie.Jackson@do.treas.gov
James Angel
James.Angel@do.treas.gov
Transportation Wilbert Baccus [202]366-0780 [202]366-7499
Wil.baccus@fhwa.dot.gov
Julie Trunk [202]366-4639 [202]366-3988
Julie.Trunk@fhwa.dot.gov
Ladd Hakes* [202-366-4268 [202]366-7510
ladd.hakes@ost.dot.gov
Michael Harkins [202]366-4928 [202]366-7499
Michael.Harkins@fhwa.dot.gov
Jerry Yakowenko [202]366-1562 [202]366-3988
Gerald.Yakowenko@fhwa.dot.gov
Nilza Velazquez [202]366-9161 [202]366-9170
Nilza.velazquez@ost.dot.gov
Jim LaRusch [202]366-1936 [202]366-3809
James.LaRusch@fta.dot.gov
Joe Pixley [202]366-1936 [202]366-3809
Joseph.Pixley@fta.dot.gov
Veterans Affair s Anne DeSena [202]273-7375 [202]275-3523
lgyadese@vba.va.gov
Don Kaliher * [202]273-8819 [202]273-9302
donald.kaliher@mail.va.gov
Sheila Wilkes [202]273-8830 [202]273-6175
sheila.wilkes@mail.va.gov
Scott Curit [202]273-8825 [202]273-6175
Scott.Curit@mail.va.gov
Len Malamud [202]273-9233 [202]273-9384
leonard.malamud@mail.va.gov
Frank Trotta [202]273-6245 [202]273-6175
frank.trotta@mail.va.gov
Brief History of EPA's Debarment Program
EPA's Debarment Program officially began in 1982 in response to Congressional oversight hearings that revealed Government-wide inadequacies in the management of Federal contracts and assistance with regard to waste, fraud, abuse and poor performance. On the basis of those hearings, and subsequent task force studies conducted by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), the Office of Management and Budget developed a comprehensive Government-wide debarment and suspension system for all Federal contracts, assistance, loans and benefits extended by Executive-Branch agencies.
EPA, as an Executive Branch agency, is part of that Government-wide system. In addition to its discretionary authority to debar pursuant the above, it also has mandatory debarment authority under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act, and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act.
As a result of the historical development of the Agency, these various debarment authorities were, in 1982, located in three locations. The statutory debarment was initially administered by various offices, but eventually was delegated to the Office of Enforcement (OE). Procurement debarment was administered by the then, Procurement and Contracts Management Division, while assistance debarment was administered by the Grants Administration Division.
In 1982, the Office of Administration and Resource Management (OARM) consolidated all EPA discretionary procurement and assistance debarment authority into the Grants Administration Division. In the early 1990s, the Agency further consolidated its debarment authority when OARM assumed the responsibilities for statutory debarment from OE. Today, all EPA discretionary and statutory debarment authority is delegated to the Assistant Administrator for OARM and carried out by the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD).
The EPA Debarring Official is the Agency's national program manager. As such the EPA Debarring Official establishes the Agency's debarment policy, and is the decision official for all suspension and debarment actions before the Agency.
The Suspension and Debarment Division (SDD) interacts with EPA program offices, the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, and with Federal, state and local agencies, to develop matters for consideration by the EPA Debarring Official.
2010-0021996 Shasta County Court
http://www.calattorneysfees.com/cases_private_attorney_general_ccp_10215/
Regulation Of Surface Water Discharges From Abandoned Mines
(Water Board "abandoned mine final")
Iron Mountain Mine
An example of an extreme application of treatment technology failing to meet
prescribed numeric effluent limits, is the large Iron Mountain Mine complex (IMM)
northwest of Redding. Prior to remedial activities, the mine discharged
approximately 650 pounds of copper and 1,800 pounds of zinc daily into the
Sacramento River. The site was placed on the National Priorities List and
remedial activities implemented by the U.S. EPA under the Federal Superfund
program. Remedial activities have included surface water diversions, waste rock
disposal, and treatment of the AMD. The treatment facility constructed by U.S.
EPA uses lime neutralization to precipitate copper, cadmium, and zinc from
solution and is considered to be the Best Available Technology. Over 200 million
dollars has been spent on the site with an additional 700 million available for
future operations of the AMD conveyance and treatment system. The treatment
plant cost over 30 million to build and O&M costs range between 5 and 7 million
dollars per year depending on precipitation which affects the generation of AMD.
The treatment system is designed to treat a maximum of 8,000 gpm during
extreme storm periods. Unless some other technology is developed in the future,
treatment will be required for an estimated 2,000 years. Overall discharges of
metals (copper, zinc and cadmium) to the Sacramento River have been reduced
by 95 percent. Despite these enormous efforts, the effluent from the treatment
plant cannot meet water quality objectives for cadmium and zinc, or objectives for
sulfates, aluminum, iron and other metals. Further, the streams adjacent or
immediately downstream from IMM, including lower Spring Creek and Bolder
Creek, will never support a typical aquatic community due to the contribution of
non-point sources that cannot be controlled. Any aquatic organisms that do live
in these watercourses are limited to algae and invertebrates that are adapted to a
low pH and high metal environment. Fish will never exist in these streams.Owners of Abandoned Mines Are Not Being Treated Equally
The SIP and the requirement for numeric effluent limits does not allow for a level
playing field for all owners of abandoned mines. Similar to the U.S EPA when
dealing with Superfund sites like IMM, Federal Land Agencies (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) claim they can also remediate their sites
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Under CERCLA, Superfund sites are not required to get an
NPDES permit or any other permit from the Regional Water Board. In place,
they can request the State provide them with applicable, relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). While the SIP and the Basin Plan are considered
ARARs, if the U.S. EPA under Superfund, believes it is not practical to achieve,
they can waive the ARAR on an interim basis, a relatively easy process. A
permanent waiver can also be sought. Even where the ARAR is waived, the
cleanup can incorporate the BMP approach described above.
Federal landowners claim the same exemption applies to all federal facilities in
all cases, whether or not the sites are on the NPL (Superfund list) and whether or
not any remediation is undergoing or actually planned.2 Thus, many years may
pass before a Federal Agency will even begin to address a site. Enforcement
against a Federal Agency for failing to initiate or complete remedial activities at a
site under these conditions is resource-intensive, legally complex and time
consuming.
In contrast, a private owner of an abandoned mine discharging AMD to surface
waters may be held to the strict standards of the SIP, including impossible to
meet time schedules and numeric effluent limits. If a numeric effluent limit is
exceeded, then MMPs are required, rapidly draining the financial resources of
the private owner attempting to comply with what may be an impossible task.
PRIVY COUNCIL
In re PIRACY JURE GENTIUM.
SPECIAL REFERENCE.
Also reported as: [1934] A.C. 586
COUNSEL: Sir Thomas Inskip A.-G. (with him Wilfrid Lewis) appeared in support of the view that actual robbery was not an essential element. Sir Leslie Scott K.C. (with him Kenelm Preedy), representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies
SOLICITOR: Treasury Solicitor.
JUDGES: Viscount Sankey L.C., Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Macmillan, and Lord Wright.
DATES: 1934. July 2, 3, 5, 26.
International Law – Piracy jure gentium – Actual Robbery not an essential element.
Actual robbery is not an essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium. A frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.
SPECIAL REFERENCE.
An Order in Council, made under s. 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, and dated November 10, 1933, provided: “The question whether actual robbery is an essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium, or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium, is referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.”
The circumstances in which the Order was made appear from the report of their Lordships.
1934. July 2, 3, 5. Sir Thomas Inskip A.-G. (with him Wilfrid Lewis) appeared in support of the view that actual robbery was not an essential element. [*587]
Sir Leslie Scott K.C. (with him Kenelm Preedy), representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, contended to the contrary.
In addition to cases mentioned in the report of their Lordships, counsel referred to R. v. Bonnet (1); Reg. v. McGregor (2); In re Tivnan (3); Att.-Gen. for Hong Kong v. Kwok-a-Sing (4); Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co., Ld. (5); and, as to the jurisdiction of the Court of the Admiral, to Reg. v. Keyn (6); also to Oppenheim's International Law, 4th ed, vol. i., p. 506, and O. E. D. s.v. “Pirate.”
Lord Macmillan referred to Dole v. New England Mutual Insurance Co. (7); and, as to the relation between international law and municipal law, to Mortensen v. Peters (8) (per Lord Dunedin), on which question counsel referred to The Zamora .(9)
July 26. The report of their Lordships was delivered by
VISCOUNT SANKEY L.C. On January 4, 1931, on the high seas, a number of armed Chinese nationals were cruising in two Chinese junks. They pursued and attacked a cargo junk which was also a Chinese vessel. The master of the cargo junk attempted to escape, and a chase ensued during which the pursuers came within 200 yards of the cargo junk. The chase continued for over half an hour, during which shots were fired by the attacking party, and while it was still proceeding, the steamship Hang Sang approached and subsequently also the steamship Shui Chow. The officers in command of these merchant vessels intervened and through their agency, the pursuers were eventually taken in charge by the Commander of H. M. S. Somme, which had arrived in consequence of a report made by wireless. They were brought as prisoners to Hong Kong and indicted for the crime of piracy. The jury found them guilty subject to the following
(1) (1718) 15 St. Tri. col. 1231, 1234.
(2) (1844) 1 C. & K. 429.
(3) (1864) 5 B. & S. 645, 687.
(4) (1873) L. R. 5 P. C. 179.
(5) [1909] 1 K. B. 785, 796, 802.
(6) (1876) 2 Ex. D. 63.
(7) (1864) 2 Cliff. 394, 417, 418.
(8) (1906) 8 F. (J.) 93, 101.
(9) [1916] 2 A. C. 77, 91, 92. [*588]
question of law: “Whether an accused person may be convicted of piracy in circumstances where no robbery has occurred.” The Full Court of Hong Kong on further consideration came to the conclusion that robbery was necessary be support a conviction of piracy and in the result the accused were acquitted.
The decision of the Hong Kong Court was final and the present proceedings are in no sense an appeal from that Court, whose judgment stands.
Upon November 10, 1933, His Majesty in Council made the following Order: “The question whether actual robbery is an essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium, or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium, is referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.”
It is to this question that their Lordships have applied themselves, and they think it will be convenient to give their answer at once and then to make some further observations upon the matter.
The answer is as follows: “Actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium. A frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.”
In considering such a question, the Board is permitted to consult and act upon a wider range of authority than that which it examines when the question for determination is one of municipal law only. The sources from which international law is derived include treaties between various States, State papers, municipal Acts of Parliament and the decisions of municipal Courts and last, but not least, opinions of jurisconsults or text-book writers. It is a process of inductive reasoning. It must be remembered that in the strict sense international law still has no legislature, no executive and no judiciary, though in a certain sense there is now an international judiciary in the Hague Tribunal and attempts are being made by the League of Nations to draw up codes of international law. Speaking generally, in embarking upon international law, their Lordships are to a great extent [*589] in the realm of opinion, and in estimating the value of opinion it is permissible not only to seek a consensus of views, but to select what appear to be the better views upon the question.
With regard to crimes as defined by international law, that law has no means of trying or punishing them. The recognition of them as constituting crimes, and the trial and punishment of the criminals, are left to the municipal law of each country. But whereas according to international law the criminal jurisdiction of municipal law is ordinarily restricted to crimes committed on its terra firma or territorial waters or its own ships, and to crimes by its own nationals wherever committed, it is also recognized as extending to piracy committed on the high seas by any national on any ship, because a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself beyond the protection of any State. He is no longer a national, but “hostis humani generis” and as such he is justiciable by any State anywhere: Grotius (1583-1645) “De Jure Belli ac Pacis,” vol. 2, cap. 20, § 40.
Their Lordships have been referred to a very large number of Acts of Parliament, decided cases and opinions of jurisconsults or text-book writers, some of which lend colour to the contention that robbery is a necessary ingredient of piracy, others to the opposite contention. Their Lordships do not propose to comment on an of them, but it will be convenient to begin the present discussion by referring to the Act of Henry VIII., cap. 15, in the year 1536, which was entitled “An Act for the punishment of pirates and robbers of the sea.” Before that Act, the jurisdiction over pirates was exercised by the High Court of Admiralty in England and that Court administered the civil law. The civilians, however, had found themselves handicapped by some of their canons of procedure, as for example, that a man could not be found guilty unless he either confessed or was proved guilty by two witnesses. The Act recites the deficiency of the Admiralty jurisdiction in the trial of offences according to the civil law and after referring to “all treasons, felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies hereafter to be committed in or [*590] upon the sea, etc.” (it is not necessary to set out the whole of it), proceeds to enact that all offences committed at sea, etc., shall be tried according to the common law under the King's Commission, to be directed to the Admiralty and others within the realm.
Many of the doubts and difficulties inherent in considering subsequent definitions of piracy are probably due to a misapprehension of that Act. It has been thought, for example, that nothing could be piracy unless it amounted to a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour, and that, as an attempt to commit a crime was only a disdemeanour at common law, an attempt to commit piracy could not constitute the crime of piracy, because piracy is a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour. This mistaken idea proceeds upon a misapprehension of the Act. In Coke's (1552-1634) Institutes, part 3, ed. 1809, after a discussion on felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies committed in or upon the sea, it is stated (p. 112) that the statute did not alter the offence of piracy or make the offence felony, but “leaveth the offence as it was before this Act, viz., felony only by the civil law, but giveth a mean of triall by the common law and inflicteth such pains of death as if they had been attainted of any felony etc. done upon the land. But yet the offence is not altered, for in the indictment upon this statute, the offence must be alleged upon the sea; so as this act inflicteth punishment for that which is a felony by the civill law, and no felony whereof the common law taketh knowledge.”
The conception of piracy according to the civil law is expounded by Molloy (1646-1690) “De Jure Maritimo et Navali” or “A Treatise of affairs Maritime and of Commerce.” That book was first published in 1676 and the ninth edition in 1769. Chapter 4 is headed “Of Piracy.” The author defines a pirate as “a sea thief or hostis humani generis who to enrich himself either by surprize or open face sets upon merchants or other traders by sea.” He clearly does not regard piracy as necessarily involving successful robbery or as being inconsistent with an unsuccessful attempt. Thus in para. xiii. he says: “So likewise if a ship shall be assaulted [*591] by pirates and in the attempt the pirates shall be overcome if the captors bring them to the next port and the judge openly rejects the trial, or the captain cannot wait for the judge without certain peril and loss, justice may be done on them by the law of nature, and the same may be there executed by the captors.” Again in para. 14 he puts the case where “a pirate at sea assaults a ship but by force is prevented from entering her” and goes on to distinguish the rule as to accessories at the common law and by the law marine. A somewhat similar definition of a pirate is given by the almost contemporary Italian jurist, Casaregis, who wrote in 1670, and says (“De Commercio,” LXIV 4): “Proprie pirata ille dicitur qui sine patentibus alicujus principis ex propria tantum, ac privata auctoritate per mare discurrit depraedandi causa.” But in certain trials for piracy held in England under the Act of Henry VIII., a narrower definition of piracy seems to have been adopted.
Thus in 1696, the trial R. v. Joseph Dawson (1) took place. The prisoners were indicted for “feloniously and piratically taking and carrying away from persons unknown a certain ship called the Gunsway …. upon the high seas ten leagues from the Cape St. Johns near Surat in the East Indies.” The Court was comprised of Sir Charles Hedges, then judge in the High Court of Admiralty, Lord Chief Justice Holt, Lord Chief Justice Treby, Lord Chief Baron Ward and a number of other judges. Sir Charles Hedges gave the charge to the grand jury. In it he said “now piracy is only a sea-term for robbery, piracy being a robbery committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. If any man be assaulted within that jurisdiction, and his ship or goods violently taken away without legal authority, this is robbery and piracy.”
Dawson's case was described as the sheet-anchor for those who contend that robbery is an ingredient of piracy. It must be remembered, however, that every case must be read secundum subjectam materiam and must be held to refer to the facts under dispute. In Dawson's case, the prisoners had undoubtedly committed robbery in their piratical expeditions. The only function of the Chief Judge was to
(1) (1696) 13 St. Tr. col. 451. [*592]
charge the grand jury and in fact to say to them: “Gentlemen, if you find the prisoners have done these things, then you ought to return a true bill against them.” The same criticism applies to certain charges given to grand juries by Sir Leoline Jenkins (1623-1685) judge of the Admiralty Court (1685): see “Life of Leoline Jenkins,” vol. 1, p. 94. It cannot be suggested that these learned judges were purporting to give an exhaustive definition of piracy, and a moment's reflection will show that a definition of piracy as sea robbery is both too narrow and too wide. Take one example only. Assume a modern liner with its crew and passengers, say of several thousand aboard, under its national flag, and suppose one passenger robbed another. It would be impossible to contend that such a robbery on the high seas was piracy and that the passenger in question had committed an act of piracy when he robbed his fellow passenger, and was therefore liable to the penalty of death. “That is too wide a definition which would embrace all acts of plunder and violence in degree sufficient to constitute piracy simply because done on the high seas. As every crime can be committed at sea, piracy might thus be extended to the whole criminal code. If an act of robbery or murder were committed upon one of the passengers or crew by another in a vessel at sea, the vessel being at the time and continuing under lawful authority and the offender were secured and confined by the master of the vessel to be taken home for trial, this state of things would not authorise seizure and trial by any nation that chose to interfere or within whose limits the offender might afterwards be found”: Dana's Wheaton, p. 193, note 83, quoted in Moore's Digest of International Law (Washington, 1906) Article “Piracy,” p. 953.
But over and above that we are not now in the year 1696, we are now in the year 1934. International law was not crystallized in the 17th century, but is a living and expanding code. In his treatise on international law, the English text-book writer Hall (1835-94) says at p. 25 of his preface to the third edition (1889)(1): “Looking back over the last couple of
(1) Reprinted in 8th ed. 1924. [*593]
centuries we see international law at the close of each fifty years in a more solid position than that which it occupied at the beginning of the period. Progressively it has taken firmer hold, it has extended its sphere of operation, it has ceased to trouble itself about trivial formalities, it has more and more dared to grapple in detail with the fundamental facts in the relations of States. The area within which it reigns beyond dispute has in that time been infinitely enlarged, and it has been greatly enlarged within the memory of living man.” Again another example may be given. A body of international law is growing up with regard to aerial warfare and aerial transport, of which Sir Charles Hedges in 1696 could have had no possible idea.
A definition of piracy which appears to limit the term to robbery on the high seas was put forward by that eminent authority Hale (1609-76), in his “Pleas of the Crown” ed. 1737, cap. 27, p. 305, where he states, “it is out of the question that piracy by the statute is robbery.” It is not surprising that subsequent definitions proceed on these lines.
Hawkins (1673-1746) “Pleas of the Crown” (1716), 7th ed., 1795, vol. 1, defines a pirate rather differently, at p. 267(1), “a pirate is one who, to enrich himself, either by surprise or open force, sets upon merchants or others trading by sea, to spoil them of their goods or treasure.” This does not necessarily import robbing.
Blackstone (1726-80), book IV., p. 71, states, “the offence of piracy, by common law, consists in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there.”
East's “Pleas of the Crown” (1803), vol. 2, p. 796, defines the offence of piracy by common law as “committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there.” This definition would exclude an attempt at piracy, because an attempt to commit a crime is, with certain exceptions, not a felony but a misdemeanour.
Their Lordships were also referred to Scottish text-book
(1) 8th ed. 1824, p. 251. [*594]
writers, including Hume (1757-1838) “Scottish Criminal Law” (1797), and Alison (1792-1867) “Scottish Criminal Law” (1832), where similar definitions are to be found. It is sufficient to say with regard to these English and Scottish writers that, as was to be expected, they followed in some cases almost verbatim the early concept, and the criticism upon them is: (1.) that it is obvious that their definitions were not exhaustive; (2.) that it is equally obvious that there appears to be from time to time a widening of the definition so as to include facts previously not foreseen; (3.) that they may have overlooked the explanation of the statute of Henry VIII. as given by Coke and quoted above, and have thought of piracy as felony according to common law whereas it was felony by civil law.
In “Archbold's Criminal Pleading” (28th ed., 1931) will be found a full conspectus of the various statutes on piracy which have been from time to time passed in this country defining the offence in various ways and creating new forms of offence as coming within the general term piracy. These, however, are immaterial for the purpose of the case, because it must always be remembered that the matter under present discussion is not what is piracy under any municipal Act of any particular country, but what is piracy jure gentium. When it is sought to be contended, as it was in this case, that armed men sailing the seas on board a vessel, without any commission from any State, could attack and kill everybody on board another vessel, sailing under a national flag, without committing the crime of piracy unless they stole, say, an article worth sixpence, their Lordships are almost tempted to say that a little common sense is a valuable quality in the interpretation of international law. This appears to be recognized in the “Digest of the Criminal Law,” by the distinguished writer, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-94), 7th ed., 1926, p. 102. At the end of the article on piracy it is stated that “it is doubtful whether persons cruising in armed vessels with intent to commit piracies, are pirates or not,” but in a significant footnote, it is added that “the doubt expressed at the end of the article is founded on the [*595] absence of any expressed authority for the affirmative of the proposition and on the absurdity of the negative.”
The Oxford English Dictionary (1909) defines a pirate as “one who robs and plunders on the sea, navigable rivers, etc., or cruises about for that purpose.”
It may now be convenient to turn to American authorities, and first of all Kent (1826). In his Commentaries, I. 183, he calls piracy “robbery, or a forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.”
Wheaton writing in 1836, Elements Pt. II., cap. 2, para. 15, defines piracy as being the offence of “depredating on the seas, without being authorized by any foreign State, or With commissions from different sovereigns at war with each other.” This enshrines a concept which had prevailed from earliest, times that one of the main ingredients of piracy is an act performed by a person sailing the high seas without the authority or commission of any State. This has been frequently applied in cases where insurgents had taken possession of a vessel belonging to their own country and the question arose what authority they had behind them. See the American case The Ambrose Light .(1) Another instance is the case of the Huascar. In 1877, a revolutionary outbreak occurred at Callao in Peru and the ironclad Huascar, which had been seized by the insurgents, put to sea, stopped British steamers, took a supply of coal from one of them without payment and forcibly took two Peruvian officials from on board another where they were passengers. The British Admiral justly considered the Huascar was a pirate, and attacked her. See Parl. Papers, Peru, No. 1, 1877.
In Moore's “Digest of International Law” (1906), vol. 2, p. 953, a pirate is defined as “one who, without legal authority from any State, attacks a ship with intention to appropriate what belongs to it. The pirate is a sea brigand. He has no right to any flag and is justiciable by all.”
Time fails to deal with all the references to the works of
(1) (1885) 25 Fed. Rep. 408, 435. [*596]
foreign jurists to which their Lordships' attention was directed. It will be sufficient to select a few examples.
Ortolan (1802-1873), a French jurist, and professor at the University of Paris, says (Dip. de la Mer, book 2, ch. 11) “Les pirates sont ceux, qui courrent les mers de leur propre autorité, pour y commettre des actes de déprédation pillant à main armée les navires de toutes les nations.”
Bluntschli (1808-81), a Swiss jurist and a professor at Munich and Heidelberg, published, in 1868, “Le Droit International Codifié,” which, in art. 343, lays down: “Sont considérés comme pirates les navires qui, sans l'autorisation d'une puissance belligérante, cherchent à s'emparer des personnes, à faire du butin (navires et marchandises), ou à anéantir dans un but criminel les biens d'autrui.”
Calvo (1824-1906), an Argentine jurist and Argentine Minister at Berlin, Le Droit International, 3rd ed., vol. 2, p. 285, para. 1134, defines piracy: “Tout vol ou pillage d'un navire ami, toute déprédation, tout acte de violence commis à main armée en pleine mer contre la personne ou les biens d'un étranger, soit en temps de paix, soit en temps de guerre.”
An American case strongly relied upon by those who contend that robbery is an essential ingredient of piracy, is that of the United States v. Smith . (1) Story J. delivered the opinion of the Court and there states “whatever may be the diversity of definitions in other respects, all writers concur in holding that robbery or forcible depredations upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy.” He would be a bold lawyer to dispute the authority of so great a jurist, but the criticism upon that statement is that the learned judge was considering a case where the prisoners charged had possessed themselves of the vessel, the Irresistible, and had plundered and robbed a Spanish vessel. There was no doubt about the robbery, and though the definition is unimpeachable as far as it goes, it was applied to the facts under consideration and cannot be held to be an exhaustive definition including all acts of piracy. The case, however, is exceptionally valuable because from p. 163-180 of the report it tabulates the opinions of
(1) (1820) 5 Wheat. 153, 161. [*597]
most of the writers on international law up to that time. But with all deference to so great an authority, the remark must be applied to Story J. in 1820 that has already been applied to Sir Charles Hedges in 1696, which is that international law has not become a crystallized code at any time, but is a living and expanding branch of the law.
In a later American decision, United States v. The Malek Adhel (1), “if he wilfully sinks or destroys an innocent merchant ship, without any other object than to gratify his lawless appetite for mischief, it is just as much a piratical aggression, in the sense of the law of nations, and of the Act of Congress, as if he did it solely and exclusively for the sake of plunder, lucri causa. The law looks to it as an act of hostility, and being committed by a vessel not commissioned and engaged in lawful warfare, it treats it as the act of a pirate, and of one who is emphatically hostis humani generis.”
Having thus referred to the two cases, Dawson (1696) and Smith (1820), which are typical of one side of the question, their Lordships will briefly refer to two others from which the opposite conclusion is to be gathered.
It will be observed that both of them are more recent. The first is the decision in the case of the Serhassan Pirates (2), decided in the English High Court of Admiralty by that distinguished judge, Dr. Lushington (1782-1873), in 1845. It was on an application by certain officers for bounty which, under the statute 6 Geo. 4, c. 49, was given to persons who captured pirates, and the learned judge said (it is not necessary to detail all the facts of the case for the purpose of the present opinion) “the question which I have to determine is whether or not the attack which was made upon the British pinnance and the two other boats constituted an act of piracy on the part of these prahns, so as to bring the persons who were on board within the legal denomination of pirates.” He held it was an act of piracy and awarded the statutory bounty. It is true that that was a decision under the special statute under which the bounties were claimed, but it will be noted that there was no robbery in that case; what happened was that
(1) (1844) 2 How. 210, 232.
(2) (1845) 2 W. Rob. 354. [*598]
the pirates attacked, but were themselves beaten off and captured. A similar comment may be made on the case in 1853 of The Magellan Pirates (1), where Dr. Lushington said: “it was never, so far as I am able to find, deemed necessary to inquire whether parties so convicted of these crimes (i.e., robbery and murder), had intended to rob on the high seas, or to murder on the high seas indiscriminately.”
Finally, there is the American case The Ambrose Light (2) where it was decided by a Federal Court that an armed ship must have the authority of a State behind it, and if it has not got such an authority, it is a pirate even though no act of robbery has been committed by it. It is true that the vessel in question was subsequently released on the ground that the Secretary of State had by implication recognized a state of war, but the value of the case lies in the decision of the Court.
Their Lordships have dealt with two decisions by Dr. Lushington. It may here be not inappropriate to refer to another great English Admiralty judge and jurisconsult, Sir Robert Phillimore (1810-85). In his International Law, 3rd ed., vol. 1, 1879, he states: “piracy is an assault upon vessels navigated on the high seas committed animo furandi whether robbery or forcible depredation be effected or not and whether or not it be accompanied by murder or personal injury.”
Lastly, Hall, to whose work on international law reference has already been made, states, on p. 314 of the 8th ed., 1924, “the various acts which are recognized or alleged to be piratical may be classed as follows: robbery or attempt at robbery of a vessel, by force or intimidation, either by way of attack from without, or by way of revolt of the crew and conversion of the vessel and cargo to their own use.” Possibly the definition of piracy which comes nearest to accuracy coupled with brevity is that given by Kenny (1847-1930), “Outlines of Criminal Law,” 14th ed., p. 332, where he says piracy is “any armed violence at sea which is not a lawful act of war,” although even this would include a shooting affray between two passengers on a liner which could not be held to be piracy. It would, however, correctly include those acts which, as far
(1) (1853) 1 Spinks E. & A. 81.
(2) 25 Fed. Rep. 408. [*599]
as their Lordships know, have always been held to be piracy, that is, where the crew or passengers of a vessel on the high seas rise against the captain and officers and seek by armed force to seize the ship. Hall put such a case in the passage just cited; it is clear from his words that it is not less a case of piracy because the attempt fails.
Before leaving the authorities, it is useful to refer to a most valuable treatise on the subject of piracy contained in “The Research into International Law by the Harvard Law School,” published at Cambridge, Mass., in 1932. In it, nearly all the cases, nearly all the statutes, and nearly all the opinions are set out on pp. 749 to 1013.
In 1926 the subject of piracy engaged the attention of the League of Nations, who scheduled it as one of a number of subjects, the regulation of which by international agreement seemed to be desirable and realizable at the present moment. Consequently, they appointed a sub-committee of their committee of experts for the progressive codification of international law and requested the sub-committee to prepare a report upon the question. An account of the proceedings is contained in the League of Nations document, C 196, M 70, 1927 V. The sub-committee was presided over by the Japanese jurist Mr. Matsuda, the Japanese Ambassador in Rome, and in their report at p. 116, they state: “according to international law, piracy consists in sailing the seas for private ends without authorization from the government of any State with the object of committing depredations upon property or acts of violence against persons.” The report was submitted to a number of nations and an analysis of their replies will be found at p. 273 of the League of Nations document. A number of States recognized the possibility and desirability of an international convention on the question. The replies of Spain, p. 154; of Greece, p. 168; and especially of Roumania, p. 208, deal at some length with the definition of piracy. Roumania adds, p. 208: “Mr. Matsuda maintains in his report that it is not necessary to premise explicitly the existence of a desire for gain, because the desire for gain is contained in the larger qualification ‘for private ends.' In [*600] our view, the act of taking for private ends does not necessarily mean that the attack is inspired by the desire for gain. It is quite possible to attack without authorization from any State and for private ends, not with a desire for gain but for vengeance or for anarchistic or other ends.” The above definition does not in terms deal with an armed rising of the crew or passengers with the object of seizing the ship on the high seas.
However that may be, their Lordships do not themselves propose to hazard a definition of piracy. They remember the words of M. Portalis, one of Napoleon's commissioners, who said: “We have guarded against the dangerous ambition of wishing to regulate and to foresee everything. …. A new question springs up. Then how is it to be decided? To this question it is replied that the office of the law is to fix by enlarged rules the general maxims of right and wrong, to establish firm principles fruitful in consequences, and not to descend to the detail of all questions which may arise upon each particular topic.” (Quoted by Halsbury L.C. in Halsbury's Laws of England, Introduction, p. ccxi.)
A careful examination of the subject shows a gradual widening of the earlier definition of piracy to bring it from time to time more in consonance with situations either not thought of or not in existence when the older jurisconsults were expressing their opinions.
All that their Lordships propose to do is to answer the question put to them, and having examined all the various cases, all the various statutes and all the opinions of the various jurisconsults cited to them, they have come to the conclusion that the better view and the proper answer to give to the question addressed to them is that stated at the beginning – namely, that actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium, and that a frustrated attempt to commit piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.
“When extraction of the ore was suspended from the various stopes above the Lawson, the ground was invery bad shape, and the condition as regards heat andgas were so terrible that it seemed advisible to abandon any attempt to work from that level. In fact it was a case of walking away and leaving the job for the next generation”WM.F. Kett, General Manager August 23, 1944
Iris Mack
Professor and former derivatives trader
Posted: November 9, 2010 10:59 AM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' IndexSwiss Banker's Reaction to U.S. Treasury Hiding A.I.G. Loss
For the taxpayer to lose money, it means someone has to win money. The money does not disappear. From simple accounting, one can depreciate an asset to the value of 10 dollars, sell it to the institutional clients who will revalue the company and push its price to over 50 dollars.
So the Treasury is guilty of negligence or collusion to defraud the tax payer. Come on, how stupid do they think the American taxpayer is?
Of course Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the other banks that get free money from the Treasury -- via the Federal Reserve -- are being subsidized to buy these shares.
Why can't they subsidize Americans who want a job? It would be best to give all those shares to each American and or to use the proceeds of the sale to repurchase foreclosed homes and to give them back to their rightful owners who were naively encouraged to buy houses that they could not afford, yet made payments up to a certain date.
Did the banks not get to write off the losses on their tax returns? Now, I read that Swiss Bank UBS is getting off clean, even though they actively organized tax evasion for many citizens in the U.S. Is it not racketeering? There is no loss. It is an accounting entry, that reflects commissions and fees charged by intermediaries.
Think of how much money was paid to banks and auditors to tell people that -- oops -- we auditors and accountants screwed up, but we can show you how to understand our screw up. Of course we have our disclaimer and you have to pay us 5 billion dollars in case we go bust and are fired. We need to maintain our standard of living, because we have fancy schools to pay for, hairdressers for our wives, and for those who have mistresses, well, we have to pay to play.
PNC to stop financing mountaintop mining projects
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — PNC Bank says it will stop financing projects that extract coal using a controversial form of surface mining known as mountaintop removal.
PNC says in a corporate responsibility statement updated late last month that it will no longer fund the projects or provide credit to coal producers that primarily use mountaintop removal to extract coal.
About 50 environmental activists gathered at a Lexington PNC branch over the summer to protest the bank's alleged funding of surface mining projects.
PNC spokesman Fred Solomon declined Monday to comment on the bank's investments. He says the corporate statement “speaks for itself.”
Other large commercial lenders, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, have announced in recent years that they would limit their relationships with companies that use mountaintop removal.
The following guest post was written by Michael D. Shaw, Executive Vice President of Interscan Corporation , and was originally posted on HealthNewsDigest.com .
When EPA was founded in December of 1970, there was no shortage of serious environmental issues to tackle. Water pollution was symbolized by taconite tailings being dumped into Lake Superior in Silver Bay, MN, and the travesty of fires on Ohio's Cuyahoga River—the most notable of which occurred on June 22, 1969. Air pollution was widespread, and many people remembered the killer smog that occurred in London in 1952, as well a stateside version in Donora, PA four years earlier.
No doubt, remarkable progress has been made in cleaning up the environment, and EPA deserves the lion's share of the credit.
However, within the very DNA of the agency is a strong dose of chemophobia. Even though the "science" in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring has been thoroughly debunked, her work is still cited with great reverence on EPA's website in "The Birth of EPA." Sadly, the tortured thoughts of Carson, an embittered woman dying of breast cancer, would have been just that, until the agency banned DDT.
Cold comfort to the millions of Africans—who died from malaria as a direct result of this—that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find someone who still thinks the banning was a good idea.
It is important to note that cold, calculated politics in the main reason for anything any government entity ever does. If there actually is any altruism, it occurs by accident. Perhaps EPA was Richard Nixon's attempt to prove his Green bona fides. At any rate, in 1970, there was plenty of legitimate work to be done.
The trouble is that by 1985 or thereabouts, most of the big problems were taken care of. But no federal agency ever disappears. Instead, the mission is expanded. With most of the obvious dragons slain, EPA could now focus on the much more murky world of potential problems, and would gradually increase its activities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
The newest trend under TSCA—announced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on December 30, 2009—is the so-called Chemical Action Plan (CAP). Lynn Bergeson, a well-known DC-based attorney specializing in regulatory issues, commented at the time:
This EPA initiative announces actions that are almost breathtaking in scope, and its development and implementation of the action plan items will set a number of new precedents—and possibly shape future legislative proposals—that industry will need to participate in and monitor closely. EPA has never previously announced so many actions under TSCA, nor has it ever cited use of Section 6 [of TSCA] so widely. Moreover, that it was issued in this form after being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget is significant and portends potentially great and largely unfettered EPA activity in the months to come.
Unfettered, indeed. With no congressional oversight, scant accountability, and the less-than-transparent manner in which chemicals are chosen for CAP treatment, many are concerned about the consequences—unintended or otherwise.On March 17, 2010, EPA announced that it was working on CAPs for several more chemicals, including siloxanes—a class of organosilicon compounds that is used in deodorants, soaps, windshield coatings, and sundry cosmetic and automotive products. Significantly, there are medical applications, as well.
Siloxanes are found in intravenous drug delivery systems, prostheses, pacemakers, dental molds, wound dressings, respirator bags, medical adhesives, and contact lenses. These compounds are relied upon in scar treatment and cosmetic and ophthalmic surgery. Even hypodermic needles are coated with siloxanes to reduce pain, making them of considerable value to children and diabetics.
You might ask why EPA is concerned about a class of compounds that has been utilized with apparent safety for decades. Good question. Let's call it a perversion of the scientific method. The classic scientific method first requires an observation. Then, and only then, a hypothesis is suggested to explain this observation, and this hypothesis is tested by an experiment. If the hypothesis is verified by this experiment, it must be repeated by others, until its truth is accepted by the scientific community.
Back in the day, carcinogenic chemicals were determined to be such after people had observed an unusually high incidence of a particular cancer in the cohort of interest. Then, animal studies were done to verify the hypothesis.
Now, though, things have changed. Far too many "scientists," who are really little more than technicians, can achieve lifetime job security by picking some chemical—especially one that is in wide commercial use—and give outrageous doses of it to a rodent. If an effect is observed, then "further study is warranted" and the chemical is put on the bad list. It matters not in the least that empirically, in actual human experience, there have been no observable ill effects.
This is not science at all. Rather, it is fear entrepreneurialism writ large—the economic impact of which can hardly be overstated.
Fortunately, Congress is currently considering legislation to reform TSCA, and by inference, EPA. Let's hope this can occur before siloxanes and other safe and important chemicals become stigmatized or banned.November 10, 2010 5:00 P.M.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
From the November 15, 2010, issue of NR
Joe Miller, Alaska's Republican nominee for the United States Senate , recently expressed support for an idea that is rapidly gaining steam in Tea Party circles: the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Miller subsequently backtracked from his statement, but he shouldn't have: Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would go a long way toward restoring federalism and frustrating special-interest influence over Washington.
Ratified in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment replaced the election of U.S. senators by state legislators with the current system of direct election by the people. By securing the Seventeenth Amendment's ratification, progressives dealt a blow to the Framers' vision of the Constitution from which we have yet to recover.
The Constitution did not create a direct democracy; it established a constitutional republic. Its goal was to preserve liberty, not to maximize popular sovereignty. To this end, the Framers provided that the power of various political actors would derive from different sources. While House members were to be elected directly by the people, the president would be elected by the Electoral College . The people would have no direct influence on the selection of judges, who would be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve for life or “during good behavior.” And senators would be elected by state legislatures.
Empowering state legislatures to elect senators was considered both good politics and good constitutional design. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the proposal was ratified with minimal discussion and recognized as the approach “most congenial” to public opinion. Direct election was proposed by Pennsylvania's James Wilson but defeated ten to one in a straw poll. More important than public opinion, however, was that limitations on direct popular sovereignty are an important aspect of a constitutional republic's superiority to a direct democracy. As Madison observes in Federalist 51, “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Election of senators by state legislatures was a cornerstone of two of the most important “auxiliary precautions”: federalism and the separation of powers. Absent some direct grant of federal influence to state governments, the latter would be in peril of being “swallowed up,” to use George Mason's phrase. Even arch-centralizer Hamilton recognized that this institutional protection was necessary to safeguard state autonomy. In addition, the Senate was seen as a means of linking the state governments together with the federal one. Senators' constituents would be state legislators rather than the people, and through their senators the states could influence federal legislation or even propose constitutional amendments under Article V of the Constitution.
The Seventeenth Amendment ended all that, bringing about the master-servant relationship between the federal and state governments that the original constitutional design sought to prevent. Before the Seventeenth Amendment, the now-widespread Washington practice of commandeering the states for federal ends — through such actions as “unfunded mandates,” laws requiring states to implement voter-registration policies that enable fraud (such as the “Motor Voter” law signed by Bill Clinton), and the provisions of Obamacare that override state policy decisions — would have been unthinkable. Instead, senators today act all but identically to House members, treating federalism as a matter of political expediency rather than constitutional principle.
There is no indication that the supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment understood that they were destroying federalism. But they failed to recognize a fundamental principle of constitutional design: that in order for constraints to bind, it is necessary for politicians to have personal incentives to respect them. “Ambition,” Madison insisted in Federalist 51, “must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”
Under the original arrangement, senators had strong incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas House members were considered representatives of the people, senators were considered ambassadors of their state governments to the federal government and, like national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject to instruction by the parties they represented (although not to recall if they refused to follow instructions). And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the national government only the power necessary to perform its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level after the crisis had passed. Today, as historian Robert Higgs has observed, federal expansion creates a “ratchet effect.”
Just as important as its role in securing federalism, the Senate as originally conceived was essential to the system of separation of powers. Bicameralism — the division of the legislature into two houses elected by different constituencies — was designed to frustrate special-interest factions. Madison noted in Federalist 62 that basing the House and Senate on different constituent foundations would provide an “additional impediment . . . against improper acts of legislation” by requiring the concurrence of a majority of the people with a majority of the state governments before a law could enacted. By resting both houses of Congress on the same constituency base — the people — the Seventeenth Amendment substantially watered down bicameralism as a check on interest-group rent-seeking, laying the foundation for the modern special-interest state.
Finally, the Framers hoped that indirect election of senators would elevate the quality of the Senate, making it a sort of American version of the House of Lords, by bringing to public service men of supreme accomplishment in business, law, and military affairs. There is some evidence that the indirectly elected Senate was more accessible to non-career politicians than today's version is. And research by law professor Vikram Amar has found that during the 19th century, accomplished senators such as Webster and Calhoun frequently rotated out of the Senate and into the executive branch or the private sector, with an understanding among state legislators — and, notably, the senator selected to fill the seat — that they could return to service if they wished to do so or were needed. Foes of the Seventeenth Amendment argued at the time that its enactment would spawn a deterioration in the body's quality. Whether the modern titans of the Senate such as Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, and the late Ted Kennedy are superior to Webster, Clay, and Calhoun is to some extent a matter of taste. But it is likely that reinstating the original mode of selection would change the type of individuals selected — and it is not implausible to think that the change would be positive.
Establishment media and liberal politicians have mocked tea partiers' calls for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment as anti-democratic. To be sure, indirect election would be less democratic than direct election, but this is beside the point. Notably, those who are most shocked by the proposal to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment are also the most vociferous in denouncing democratic election of judges. The Framers understood what today's self-interested sloganeers of democracy do not: What matters is not whether a given method of selecting governmental officials is more or less democratic, but whether it will safeguard the constitutional functions bestowed upon each branch and conduce to their competent execution. Indeed, certain of the Senate's duties — such as its role as a type of jury for impeachment proceedings — make sense only if it is somewhat insulated from the public's passions of the moment, as was well demonstrated by the farcical Senate trial of Bill Clinton.
Critics of repeal have also contended that election of senators by state legislatures was, and would be today, unusually prone to corruption and bribery. But research by historian C. H. Hoebeke found that of the 1,180 Senate elections between 1789 and 1909, in only 15 cases was fraud credibly alleged, and in only seven was it actually found — approximately one-half of 1 percent. Moreover, it is absurd to think that even this modest degree of corruption would be tolerated in the modern media age, any more than politicians can today sell judgeships or other appointed offices, as they frequently did in the past. And even in the progressive era it was not believed that direct election of senators would prevent corruption. Among the Seventeenth Amendment's staunchest supporters were urban political machines (hardly advocates of clean government), which understood that direct election would boost their control of the Senate as they drove and bribed their followers to the polls.
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would not be a panacea for what ails the American political and constitutional system. As during the era before the Seventeenth Amendment, many states would probably adopt either de facto direct election of senators, in which legislatures essentially agree to ratify the popular vote, or attenuated forms of it, such as primaries or conventions to select party nominees from whom the legislatures choose. And much work would remain to be done to restore the public's understanding of the difference between a direct democracy and a democratic constitutional republic. But repeal would be a step in the direction of restraining an imperialistic central government and frustrating special-interest influence. Whether or not it is good politics, it remains sound constitutional design.
—Mr. Zywicki is a George Mason University Foundation professor of law and a senior scholar of the Mercatus Center. He has written several law-review articles examining the history and impact of the Seventeenth Amendment. This article first appeared in the November 15, 2010, issue of National Review .
Protection Is Our Trademark
U.S. Government Seizes and Shutters Torrent-Finder.com
Quote:
Torrent-Finder.com is down today; the site was apparently seized by government agencies for reasons unknown. In all likelihood, the site was taken down due to intellectual property concerns including copyright infringement and trafficking in counterfeit goods.
The agencies named in the notice include the Department of Justice, the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center , and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of Homeland Security Investigations. (Emphasis added)
The what?
We have a distinct government organization called the "National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center?" Well, yes, apparently we do , and it has its own staff, bureaucracy, and they've even taken the time to design their own nifty shield and logo. (Oh, and I bet they have their own uniforms. I mean, after all now, we can't risk a situation in the field where you can't quickly identify the IPR Center agents in the operation, now can we? Timing is critical! Fines are at stake!)
Reading down a little, we find the IPR Center is partnered with a long list of other US and international organizations, including:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Defense Criminal Investigative Service
U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command, Major Procurement Fraud Unit
General Services Administration, Office of Inspector General
Consumer Product Safety Commission
INTERPOL
Government of Mexico Tax Administration Service
Questions about this list:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office : OK, isn't this whole concept of intellectual property protection exactly why we have the Patent & Trademark Office? Shouldn't they be handling this instead of having the creation of a "National IPR Center?"
Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations The FDA has an "Office of Criminal Investigations?" What do they do that couldn't be done by other organizations, like say some hypothetical federal bureau that investigates things that are violations of federal crimes? (Maybe this "federal investigating bureau" exists, but it's really really obscure and the folks at the FDA never heard of it?) (And even worse yet, why do I have the creepy feeling that the FDA "Office of Criminal Investigations" has its own SWAT unit?)
NCIS, DCIS, and the Army's Criminal Investigation Command : Holy cow, the National IPR needs military backup? No, it's probably just a matter of "coordinating efforts," but again why would these agencies be independently investigating copyright matters? Are we chasing after GIs who occasionally buy bootleg DVDs in downtown Baghdad just so they have something to watch on TV back in their quarters? Are they hoping that some week Mark Harmon and team will do an episode where they bust some seaman for downloading Tron Legacy ?
Ya wanna know why the government is broke? It's because of organizations like this, the death of a thousand cuts. The National IPR Center has it's own offices, staff, leadership, phones, IT structure, copy machines, coffee machines, and web page. It's got it's own civil servant in charge, with his/her own administrative staff, including finance (they always have finance). They've got their own friggin' logo and motto, and a crack team that assembles statistics to put into nifty PowerPoint presentations (which they manage to screw up, see page 9 and a few other locations).
At the top of the list of things that they're finding...and they brag about this...is shoes !
Ya wanna know part of the reason why the government is broke? Because we paid a group of people to sit around and decide that for reporting purposes, seized sunglasses would be classified as "Safety and Security" items (PPT presentation page 10), which sounds suspiciously to me like somebody had a mandate to "Boost those S & S numbers for the annual report, dammit!" ("Sunglasses, Wilson?" "Yes sir, why our team has determined that substandard sunglasses provide insufficient protection against wind-blown beach sand. This could cause eye damage which would impair a person's ability to serve in the military, and thus weaken our national defense.") Multiply this by the hundreds of similar, obscure, duplicate organizations that exist throughout the federal government and one begins to see why we're now running a trillion dollars in debt.
The National IPR Center. "Protection Is Our Trademark." Yes, your tax dollars paid somebody to spend the time to dream up that motto. And in return, you got safe shoes. Maybe.Solar Millennium LLC, the American project development unit of the Solar Millennium Group(ISIN DE0007218406), has received the draft of a conditional term sheet from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the scope of the approval process for the federal loan Guarantee program. The terms and conditions in the draft term sheet provide a framework for the commencement of discussions on terms between the DOE and Solar Millennium regarding the securing of the loan guarantee. In these discussions, the major terms of a proposed loan guarantee are set forth. Receipt of the term sheet is thus a significant prerequisite for successfully concluding the financing of the planned power plants Blythe 1 and 2.
At the Blythe location in Riverside County, California, Solar Millennium plans to build and operate up to four parabolic trough power plants through Solar Trust of America, LLC, with a capacity of 250 megawatts (MW) each. All four solar power plants together will make up the world's largest solar power facility to date. Solar Millennium has already received the respective construction permits by the California regulatory authorities and the U.S. government in September and October. The Company plans to finance at least two-thirds of the construction volume of its two power plants with low-rate loans by the U.S. Federal Finance Bank. In order to secure this share of debt capital, the Company has applied for the respective loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Oliver Blamberger, CFO of Solar Millennium AG, explains the further business plans: "We assume we'll be able to wrap up negotiations with the U.S. Department of Energy in the new year. Because the Blythe projects represent a significant portion of our sales and profit planning, the Executive Board has decided not to give an early forecast for the current fiscal year until further notice." Regarding the schedule for the two solar power plants going forward, Blamberger adds: "As we have already announced, we plan to begin construction on Blythe 1 and 2 in December regardless of the conclusion of financing. The preliminary contracts here have already been signed with a major U.S. construction company."
Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America, is pleased about the receipt of the draft term sheet: "We‘re extremely pleased with the proactive approach by the U.S. Department of Energy with regard to our Blythe projects, and we are excited to see the progress made in securing the loan guarantees." Schmidt is also optimistic about the further course of the approval process: "We are confident that the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as the other federal authorities involved in the loan guarantee program, will now act quickly to move the approved power plant projects forward. The solar power plants under development and construction are of central importance not only for reaching California's climate goals, but also for improving the region's economic future."
Solar Millennium believes the construction phase of Blythe will create more than 1,100 jobs as well as up to 200 permanent maintenance and operations positions once the two power plants are fully operational. With a potential capacity of 1,000 MW, Blythe will forge ahead of the dimension of nuclear power plants. The four power plants together are expected to produce enough electricity for more than 300,000 American households, thereby saving roughly one million tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Power purchase agreements between Solar Millennium LLC and the American utility Southern California Edison (SCE) for the first two 250-MW solar power plants to be realized were approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in July of this year. The agreements regulate the purchase of electricity produced by SCE.PROTECTED BY FREEDOM EMPOWERING ACTION TOGETHER HELPING EVERYONE RECOVER SAFELY (FEATHERS)
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.
IRON MOUNTAIN HAZARD ASSISTANCE REMEDIATION DIRECTOR TENANT-IN-CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
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
what is fear, saith Solomon, but a betraying of the succours that reason offereth
Deo, Patriae, Tibi.