ping
Thanks for the info but how much more efficient will the gov’t be if it doubles in size? We need to dump the fed and return to states rights.
Regulating the environment is not a regulated power listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution! Therefore the EPA is unconstitutional and must be abolished!
I hope this is not true.
EPA, Environmental Protection my A$$.
“Killed” the coast? C’mon... can we dispense with the hyperbole for a little while? Of course there’s no doubt that this is going to be a great environmental problem for the gulf, but it isn’t “killed”, and it WILL recover.
This could be taken care of with an executive order, not amnesty for tens of millions of illegals.
This is just what I had suspected all along and the fine is $50,000 for each incident of putting polluted water in the Gulf apparently even if it is a lot less polluted than when you took it out.
This is just what I had suspected all along and the fine is $50,000 for each incident of putting polluted water in the Gulf apparently even if it is a lot less polluted than when you took it out.
The "decanting" rules were presumably devised to help reduce the damage of an oil spill but they have been written and structured so the rules PREVENT mitigation of the damage.
Someone wrote these rules. They were published in the Federal Register. The "individual most responsible" had his name published with them went they were sent out for "notice and comment".
Seems to me some friend in the government could readily access the Federal Register to find out who that person is. I am sure they can be contacted on the matter.
In the meantime the original regulations promulgated by EPA over 3 decades ago had an "exclusion" clause that allowed discharges that were normally involved in the operation of an oceangoing vessel ~ for example, water released from an oil decanting operation would be something normal with an oil decanting vessel!
It was excluded from the permitting process up until the end of "W"s second term, then it was DESTROYED BY A FEDERAL COURT ON BEHALF OF NARROW ANTI DUMPING INTERESTS IN CALIFORNIA.
Here's the testimony of Mr. Hanlon
"TESTIMONY OF James A. Hanlon Director Office of Wastewater Management U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BEFORE THE WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE June 12, 2008
Introduction
Good morning Chairwoman Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee. I am James A. Hanlon, the Director of the Office of Wastewater Management in the Office of Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thank you for the opportunity to discuss discharges that are incidental to the normal operation of vessels and the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) program.
My testimony will provide updates on our current NPDES permitting activities with respect to commercial vessel discharges. I will begin by first providing a brief overview of EPA’s long-standing NPDES exclusion for discharges that are incidental to the normal operation of vessels and the litigation that challenges the validity of that exclusion.
NPDES Permit Exclusion and Related Litigation
Less than one year after the CWA was enacted, EPA promulgated a regulation excluding discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the NPDES permitting program. First promulgated on May 22, 1973, that regulatory exclusion has undergone only minor changes over the past 35 years, and is currently codified at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) as follows:
“The following discharges do not require NPDES permits:
(a) Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This exclusion does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard; nor to other discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation such as when used as an energy or mining facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development.”
In January 1999, a number of interested parties submitted a rulemaking petition to EPA expressing concern over discharges of ships’ ballast water containing invasive species and other matter and requested that EPA repeal the exclusion.
Following EPA’s denial of the petition, in December 2003, several of the groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking revocation of the exclusion (Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. v. EPA, No. C 03-05760 SI). Despite our arguments defending the validity of the exclusion and requesting that any relief be limited to ballast water alone, in September 2006, the Court issued an order vacating the regulatory exclusion as of September 30, 2008.
Because that order was not limited to just ballast water discharges, it potentially implicates a wide variety of other discharges incidental to the normal operations of vessels, not only for the thousands of larger ocean- going ships with ballast tanks, but also, commercial vessels, barges, recreational vessels, and any other vessels (other than vessels of the Armed Forces) with discharges incidental to their normal operations into waters of the United States.
Section 301(a) of the CWA generally prohibits the “discharge of a pollutant” without an NPDES permit. If the District Court’s order remains unchanged, the regulatory exclusion allowing for the discharge of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of a vessel without an NPDES permit will be vacated by the Court on September 30, 2008. This means that, as of that date, the regulatory exclusion will no longer exempt such discharges from the prohibition in CWA section 301(a).
The CWA authorizes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the prohibition against the discharge of a pollutant without a permit, and also allows for citizen suits against violators."
.
For all practical purposes the Gulf of Mexico is being sacrificed by a District Court in California!
I didn't catch the name of the judge but he or she can be identified and dealt with!
If the regulation should have been changed that consideration should have involved MORE folks than those involved in the court trial in California ~ for example, the entire nation ~ where the consideration for change could be made through the Federal Register, and all of us could drop in some comments about apocalypse, dead pelicans, damaged red snappers, and so forth.
By limiting the scope of discussion to just this one court in California a great injustice has been done by the government of the United States, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been lost for no good reason.
It is long overdue to drag the evildoers in this particular lawsuit from their dens and put them on trial. They knew what they were doing.
Alex continues to ground Gulf oil skimming operations
Hurricane Alex Held Up Oil Cleanup—And in Some Places, Made Things Worse
Gulf Oil Cover Up: Underneath Gaping Chasm of Gulf Floor is a Mt Everest Sized Cavern
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2545025/posts
If this story is correct this environmental disaster is going to get really, really bad.
Of interest the group with primary responsibility for the lawsuit is part of a group of PAC NW environmental whack jobs you can find at http://www.rnp.org/about/members.html
The named litigants in the case were: NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES, THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY, INC., WATERKEEPERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA.
Ostensibly this was all about keeping invasive species out of West Coast waters ~ by forcing EPA to regulate all ships' bilgewater emissions.
Kind of like doing the CO2 thing ~ and made as much sense in that no consideration whatsoever was given to possible damage elsewhere.
If anyone ever needed proof that EPA is an agency OUT OF CONTROL this is it. They let a federal judge dictate the terms of a regulation without concern for the potential destruction of the Gulf of Mexico ~ and that's now underway.
Can anyone find if Obama has appointed any of the pukes identified in the member groups of the umbrella operation to federal office?
That'd help us personalize this whole thing and give us a great target!
Just think of all the $ that could be saved (ie returned to taxpayers) if the Depts of Energy, Education, EPA, ATF, most of the FBI, DEA, HLS were disbanded never to return or morph into something else. In short they’d cease to exist ever again. Not only would our pockets be fatter but our liberties would be more secure.