States, industry groups sue EPA, Army Corps

SALEM, Ohio —  The ink barely dried on new federal rules expanding the Clean Water Act before dozens of states, agricultural and business industry groups filed lawsuits in courts around the country, claiming the changes hand the government an unreasonable amount of authority over land use.

The Clean Water Act already gave Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over “navigable” waters. The new rule broadens that to include other water bodies, as well as upstream waters, 100-year flood plains and ephemeral streams such as the kind farmers use for drainage and irrigation. It also would encompass lands adjacent to such waters. The new rule was published June 29, and will go into effect Aug. 28.

States sue

The EPA has said the changes, which were rewritten in recent months, should have little impact on agricultural activities and other uses. Dozens of states and industry groups remain unconvinced. Four lawsuits representing 27 states were filed in U.S. District courts in Ohio, North Dakota, Texas and Georgia, starting June 29.

Ohio and Michigan filed suit in Ohio. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas filed in Texas. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming filed in North Dakota. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed suit in Georgia.

Via: Farm and Dairy

Continue Reading.....

The EPA’s Pebble Blame Game

The agency digs deep for excuses—and not very good ones—to explain its veto of an Alaskan mine project.

Government agencies have a certain descending order of excuses they employ as a scandal grows. When they reach the point of quibbling over semantics and blaming low-level employees, it’s clear they know they’ve got a problem.

The EPA has a problem: its pre-emptive veto of the Pebble Mine, a proposed project in southwest Alaska. The law says that Pebble gets to apply for permits, and the Army Corps of Engineers gets to give thumbs up or down. The EPA, a law unto itself, instead last year blocked the proposal before applications were even filed. The agency claims it got involved because of petitions from Native American tribes in 2010, and that its veto is based on “science”—a watershed assessment that purportedly shows the mine would cause environmental harm.

This column reported a week ago on EPA documents that tell a very different story. They reveal the existence of an internal EPA “options paper” that make clear the agency opposed the mine on ideological grounds and had already decided to veto it in the spring of 2010—well before it did any “science.” Emails showed an EPA biologist, Phil North,working in the same time frame with an outside green activist to gin up the petitions. It’s not much of a leap to suggest that the EPA encouraged the petitions so that it would have an excuse to intervene, run its science as cover, and block a project it already opposed.

None of this looks good, and in a nearby letter EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran is already bringing up semantics. According to the EPA—and other environmental groups now picking up the same line—the agency didn’t “veto” the project, but simply put “restrictions” on it. Indeed. The “restrictions” are that Pebble can’t build its mine, or for that matter even a significantly smaller one. Veto, restrictions, it’s all the same thing. The EPA killed the project.

Via: Wall Street Journal

Continue Reading....

Obama- sand sculpture Mount Rushmore imitation

I LOVE ME, I LOVE MYSELF. MOUNT RUSHMORE? NOT A CHANCE!!

This one takes the cake.

At the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte, they will have pictures of such American icons as the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore.

Apparently President Obama has such a high opinion of himself that there is also a sand sculpture of him, erected at the DNC at the EpiCentre entertainment complex, seemingly in imitation of  Mount Rushmore. It consists of 15 tons of sand trucked in from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

This raises interesting questions, such as how much must this have cost?  What was the effect on the beach, environmentally?  And how big an ego do you have to have to try to imitate Mount Rushmore while you are still a sitting president?

Let the jokes begin! Shovel ready job, house built on sand, no graven images, etc…

Update: Looks like we raised a good question about the sand removal.  The Morning Spew reports that back in 1998 the Army Corp of Engineers spent $60 million of public money to put sand back into the beach! 

I would want to know how 15 tons of South Carolina beach ended up at the DNC Convention in Charlotte, NC.  It’s also puzzling that Democrats, who consider themselves bastions of environmental policy, would actually think that digging up a beach for this purpose was a good idea, especially when beaches remain a fragile habitat for many types of endangered wildlife.

Since the original 1998 replenishment, the beach was replenished in 2009 as well in order to protect people and property from storm damage along the shore. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers, it is scheduled to continue to be replenished with Federal, state and local money through 2046.  

We will let you know when we track down exactly where the sand came from in Myrtle Beach.

CITIZEN JOURNALIST
Continue Reading...