The Overbearing EPA

[Ryan Ruck]

Liberals looking to hamstring our ability to utilize our own energy resources no matter what.

EPA Launches Study Of Fracking As Practice Widens

March 18, 2010

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it'll conduct a massive study to investigate any potential adverse impact of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas, as the energy industry moves to boost domestic natural gas supplies.

The effort comes as part of a move by government officials and academics to grapple with an expected increase in the decades-old practice of extracting natural gas by injecting water and fracturing rock, a practice known as fracking.

"There are concerns that hydraulic fracturing may impact ground water and surface water quality in ways that threaten human health and the environment," the EPA said Thursday.

The agency said it's re-allocating $1.9 million to help pay for a, "comprehensive, peer-reviewed" study. It'll request funding for 2011 in President Barack Obama's budget proposal. The EPA hopes to complete the study by the end of 2012.

Regina Hopper, president of the industry group, America's Natural Gas Alliance, said the EPA study will help affirm the safety of fracking.

"Hydraulic fracturing has been refined and improved over the past 60 years and has been used safely on more than one million U.S. wells," Hopper said in a prepared statement. "We look forward to sharing with the EPA the extensive work done at every step of the natural gas extraction process."

While hydraulic fracturing usually takes place far underground, well below aquifers for domestic water supplies, it also produces wastewater which much be treated on site or trucked off for disposal.

Last month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee launched an investigation into the potential impact and said it would like to see more information on the chemicals used in fracturing liquid.

Lots of potential, but at what costs?

"Hydraulic fracturing could help us unlock vast domestic natural gas reserves once thought unattainable, strengthening America's energy independence and reducing carbon emissions," said Chairman Henry Waxman, (D., Calif.). "As we use this technology in more parts of the country on a much larger scale, we must ensure that we are not creating new environmental and public health problems."

Fracking piqued the interest of Congress in recent months after Exxon Mobil set plans to buy hydraulic fracturing giant XTO Energy in a deal worth about $40 billion, as part of the energy giant's effort to ramp up the practice around the U.S.

In a hearing on Jan. 20 with Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment were generally supportive of the jobs and domestic energy production created by the unconventional gas production business. See full story.

The EPA study is the last of a wave of attention drawn by fracking, including a study of possible earth tremors caused by the practice in Texas.

Southern Methodist University seismologists Brian Stump and Chris Hayward said seismographs recorded 11 earthquakes between Nov. 9, 2008 and Jan. 2, 2009 - too small to be felt by area residents -- near the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. The area is part of the Barnett Shale in Texas, a rich source of unconventional natural gas, and close to well operated by Chesapeake Energy Corp.

The largest tremor measured 3.3 on the Richter scale, as reported by the USGS National Earthquake Information Center. Stump cautioned that the study raised many questions.

"What we have is a correlation between seismicity, and the time and location of saltwater injection," Stump said in a prepared statement on the study. "What we don't have is complete information about the subsurface structure in the area - things like the porosity and permeability of the rock, the fluid path and how that might induce an earthquake."

The study, which also included researchers from the University of Texas, was featured in the March issue of The Leading Edge, the publication for the Society of Exploration Geophysicists.

Julie Wilson, a spokeswoman for Chesapeake, told The Wall Street Journal that the drilling and fracturing "have absolutely nothing to do with the seismic activity" near the airport.

[Malsua]

Dumbest bullshit ever. They're acting like to Frac is something new.

Wells have been frac'd for a long long time. At least since the mid 70s when I started to be around the oil business.

[American Patriot]

Well, FRAC 'EM!

[Ryan Ruck]

More incremental totalitarianism…

EPA’s New Lead Paint Rules Go Into Effect

Homeowners will be required to hire a certified contractor.

April 21, 2010

As of Wednesday, April 21, anyone renovating an older home across the country will have to hire a contractor certified to handle lead-based paint under a new federal rule that aims to reduce the number of children poisoned by the toxic metal.

The rule affects all homes built before 1978, when lead was banned in paint.

The number of children harmed by lead has dropped significantly since then, mainly because it has been banned in consumer products. But the Environmental Protection Agency, which imposed the rule, said a million children a year still suffer effects.

The agency and others have launched an awareness campaign so homeowners, as well as schools and other buildings where children are present, understand that lead is still a problem and a new rule has gone into effect.

"Lead is a dangerous, toxic substance that needs to be treated that way," said Ruth Ann Norton, executive director of the Baltimore-based National Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. "The key is to make sure homeowners are aware. When you have contractors working on your house, you need to check for certification and pay attention that there is proper cleanup."

She said lead can cling to hands and clothes and can be eaten or inhaled. It's particularly devastating to young children, causing lower IQs and behavior problems, but it also causes health problems for adults.

Past federal rules had required property owners to tell buyers and renters only about lead-based paint they knew existed. Maryland passed more stringent rules in the 1990s that also required inspection and treatment of lead-based paint in rental properties.

But this is the first time that homeowners will be subject to rules, and the National Association of Home Builders estimates it will affect 8.4 million renovation jobs annually.

And while contractors seem largely on board with the spirit of the rule, some, including those from the home builders association, are complaining that federal officials did not authorize enough trainers and not enough contractors are certified. One person per company has to pay $300 to take a daylong class.

That person has to be present at the start of a job to ensure proper procedures are followed, and at the end to conduct a swipe test for lead on surfaces. Activists are trying to add a dust test, as well.

The EPA has declined to delay implementation of the rules. According to a spokesman, Maryland had offered 179 classes and had 4,117 renovators trained as of mid-April. Nationally, the EPA expected 125,000 contractors to be certified by the date of implementation — short of the agency's original goal of 200,000.

The EPA says violations will cost contractors $37,500 per incident. Enforcement will be based solely on tips and complaints, which concerns many activists.

Property owners with no children or pregnant women living in their houses or apartments can opt out of the rule, to the chagrin of activists who are working to close that loophole.

Lead poisoning has been a particular problem in Baltimore, where the housing stock is largely older and many of the properties are rentals, some not well-maintained.

State data show that in Baltimore there were almost 500 new cases of poisoning in children age 6 and younger in 2008. Deteriorating paint and renovations are the major sources of lead exposure, according to the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Kenneth Dunn, owner of Mr. Handyman in Owings Mills, said the rule will affect every job where he has to cut at least a 6-square-foot hole in a painted wall. The extra work to comply will cost more. For example, if he's repairing a hole, the bill could go from about $138 to $300.

But still, he said, "The procedures are not overkill; it's what's needed to assure the environment is lead-free. My concern is the thousands of contractors out there who won't comply with this. People will think they got a great price. But at what cost?"

[vector7]

Senators predict a climate bill capping emissions only for utilities

By Juliet Eilperin
Wednesday, June 30, 2010; A04



A bipartisan group of senators emerged Tuesday from a meeting with President Obama still divided over how to craft a climate and energy bill, with lawmakers predicting scaled-back legislation that would cap emissions from electric utilities rather than impose an economy-wide limit on greenhouse gases.

Last month Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) unveiled a bill that includes a broader emissions cap along with subsidies for the nuclear industry and limits on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate carbon. Kerry said in an interview that they would make more concessions to win Republican support, but he added: "My question is, which is the compromise of any of the others?

Show me the compromise."

In the hour-and-a-half meeting Tuesday, Obama urged the 23 senators to "aim high," several lawmakers said. But the president also made it clear that "he wasn't putting out a particular recipe" for a bill, said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "The Senate is going to have to figure this out."

Two GOP senators -- Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine -- said they would support forcing emitters to pay for their carbon output. But many Republicans remained unconvinced.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said any measure that imposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gases and makes emitters pay for carbon dioxide output "will not sell in this country."

And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who also attended the meeting, said he told the president to focus instead on pouring federal dollars into energy research and development, building nuclear power plants, and electrifying the nation's auto fleet.

Lawmakers discussed a more modest climate and energy bill that would target electric utilities and other stationary sources: Power plants account for roughly 40 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Snowe issued a statement after the meeting supporting such a plan.

However, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for a utility-only carbon cap, said Joe Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton & Williams and represents several industries that would face new regulation under a climate bill.

Major power companies probably would demand several concessions for backing the bill, including exemption from regulation under the Clean Air Act and new rules on mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

And Collins, who has authored her own climate bill with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said she could support a price on carbon only if revenue from pollution allowances was returned to consumers. She added, "It's going to be very difficult" to find any bill that can muster 60 votes, the number needed to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. "The White House meeting underscored to me how many diverse views there are on how to proceed with any clean-energy bill."

Ralph Izzo, president and chief executive of the New Jersey-based utility PSEG, said Tuesday that his company could support a utilities-only bill: "It's a second choice to economy-wide, but if you have to start with a single sector, this would be the logical sector to start with."

Environmentalists such as Joe Mendelson, director of global warming policy for the National Wildlife Federation, questioned Republicans' resistance to a sweeping carbon cap.

"Republican leadership emerged from a meeting today saying nothing different than from a year ago," Mendelson said in a statement. "With a Gulf disaster and the public galvanized in favor of climate action, unfortunately they are still reading from Joe Barton's playbook" -- a reference to the Texas Republican's controversial apology to BP.

But several senators made it clear in the meeting that they do not feel compelled to meet environmentalists' expectations. At the outset, according to sources who spoke about the private session on the condition of anonymity, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) suggested that Kerry and Lieberman's climate bill should serve as the basis for a broad energy bill.

After some senators objected, the group discussed having as the base text either an oil spill bill authored by Murkowski and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, or an energy bill the two senators wrote.

[Malsua]

And Goldman Sachs is greasing up the blood funnel.

[vector7]

Obama’s promise to bankrupt coal will cost 1000 Midwest jobs


Obama bankrupts coal industry

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised to bankrupt any new coal-burning plants in the US through his global-warming policies. Congress has followed suit with a cap-and-trade bill that Harry Reid keeps promising to revive. One firm in Wisconsin shows exactly what happens when politicians intervene to attempt to conduct social engineering in the energy sector. Bucyrus just lost a $600 million project for a new coal-burning electricity plant in India, thanks to a decision by the Congressionally-funded US Export-Import Bank to deny the Wisconsin firm credit, based in part on Barack Obama’s policies:

Up to 1,000 jobs at Bucyrus International Inc. and its suppliers could be in jeopardy as the result of a decision by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, funded by Congress, to deny several hundred million dollars in loan guarantees to a coal-fired power plant and mine in India.

About 300 of those jobs are at the Bucyrus plant in South Milwaukee, where the company has 1,410 employees and its headquarters. The remaining jobs are spread across 13 states, including Illinois, Minnesota and Indiana. Source

Obama is a hypocrite. Pumping billions into all the favorite scams, Corn Ethanol, Agrofuels, Clean Coal, Wind & Solar. Zip for the only realistic solution, which of course is Nuclear – both fission & fusion.

It’s easy to put up Wind Turbines and pretend that you’re green – but the truth is you aren’t. The carbon abatement cost of Wind is over $1000 per ton of CO2 avoided, vs Nuclear at $22 per ton.

Nuclear France has the lowest emissions of any industrialized country, 89 gm CO2 per kwh of power, vs Wind Energy Denmark at the highest level of 660 gm CO2 per kwh of power. While Solar & Wind in Germany at 602 gm CO2 per kwh of power.

To avert potential Climate Change & Peak Oil catastrophe (but these are scams) we need to install 1 GWe of clean energy per day for the next 20 yrs. Total Solar & Wind in the World 2008 is 40 Gwe avg output; 40 days supply, and that is totally reliant on fossil fuel energy for backup.

Completely useless.

A sick joke.

[vector7]

EPA Proposal Cuts Pollution from Power Plants in 31 States and D.C. / Rule would reduce smog- and soot-forming emissions contributing to unhealthy air

Release date: 07/06/2010
Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn, milbourn.cathy@epa.gov, 202-564-7849, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing regulations to cut air pollution that impairs air quality and harms the health of people living downwind. The regulation will target power plant pollution that drifts across the borders of 31 eastern states and the District of Columbia. Air pollution is linked to thousands of asthma cases and heart attacks, and almost 2 million lost school or work days. Along with local and state air pollution controls, the new proposal, called the transport rule, is designed to help areas in the eastern United States meet existing national air quality health standards.

“This rule is designed to cut pollution that spreads hundreds of miles and has enormous negative impacts on millions of Americans,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We’re working to limit pollution at its source, rather than waiting for it to move across the country. The reductions we’re proposing will save billions in health costs, help increase American educational and economic productivity, and -- most importantly -- save lives.”

The transport rule would reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO[/font]2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) to meet state-by-state emission reductions. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA actions would reduce SO2 emissions by 71 percent over 2005 levels. NOx emissions would drop by 52 percent.

EPA is using the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act to reduce interstate transport, which is the upwind state emissions that contribute to air quality problems in downwind states. The proposed rule sets in place a new approach that can and will be applied again as further pollution reductions are needed to help areas meet air quality health standards.

SO2 and NOx react in the atmosphere to form fine particle pollution and ground-level ozone (smog), which are linked to widespread illnesses and premature deaths. These pollutants are carried on the wind to other states, contributing to health problems for their residents and interfering with states’ ability to meet air quality standards.

Today’s action would yield more than $120 billion in annual health benefits in 2014, including avoiding an estimated 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.9 million days when people miss school or work due to ozone- and particle pollution-related symptoms. These benefits would far outweigh the annual cost of compliance with the proposed rule, which EPA estimates at $2.8 billion in 2014.

EPA expects that the emission reductions will be accomplished by proven and readily available pollution control technologies already in place at many power plants across the country.

The transport rule also would help improve visibility in state and national parks and would increase protection for ecosystems that are sensitive to pollution, including streams in the Appalachians, lakes in the Adirondacks, estuaries and coastal waters, and red maple forests.

The proposal would replace and improve upon the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered EPA to revise in 2008. The court allowed CAIR to remain in place temporarily while EPA works to finalize the replacement rule proposed today.

EPA will take public comment on the proposal for 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register. The agency also will hold public hearings. Dates and locations for the hearings will be announced shortly.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport

[vector7]

III. Summary of Proposed Rule and Background

A. Summary of Proposed Rule

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states to prohibit
emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to
any primary or secondary NAAQS. In this notice, EPA proposes to
find that emissions of SO2 and NOX in 32 eastern states
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in one or more downwind states with respect to one
or more of three air quality standards -- the annual average
PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, the 24-hour average PM2.5 NAAQS
promulgated in 2006, and the ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997.1
These emissions are transported downwind either as SO2 and NOX
or, after transformation in the atmosphere, as fine particles or
ozone. This notice identifies emission reduction
responsibilities of upwind states, and also proposes enforceable
FIPs to achieve the required emissions reductions in each state
through cost-effective and flexible requirements for power
plants. Each state will have the option of replacing these
federal rules with state rules to achieve the required amount of
emissions reductions from sources selected by the state.
With respect to the annual average PM2.5 NAAQS, this
proposal finds that 24 eastern states have SO2 and NOx emission
reduction responsibilities, and quantifies each state’s full emission reduction responsibility under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). With respect to the 24-hour average PM2.5
NAAQS, this proposal finds that 25 eastern states have emission
reduction responsibilities. The proposed reductions will at
least partly eliminate, and subject to further analysis may
fully eliminate, these states’ significant contribution and
interference with maintenance for purposes of the 24-hour
average PM2.5 standard. In all, emissions reductions related to
interstate transport of fine particles would be required in 28
states.

With respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, this proposal
requires emissions reductions in 26 states. For 16 of these
states, we propose that the required reductions represent their
full significant contribution and interference with maintenance
for the ozone NAAQS. For an additional 10 states, the required
NOx reductions are needed for these states to make measurable
progress towards eliminating their significant contribution and
interference with maintenance. EPA has begun to conduct
additional information gathering and analysis to determine the
extent to which further reductions from these states may be
needed to fully eliminate significant contribution and
interference with maintenance with the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

This proposed rule would achieve substantial near-term
emissions reductions from the power sector. EPA projects that with the proposed rule, EGU SO2 emissions would be 5.0 million
tons lower, annual NOX emissions would be 700,000 tons lower, and
ozone season NOX emissions would be 100,000 tons lower in 2012,
compared to baseline 2012 projections in the proposed covered
states. Further, EGU SO2 emissions would be 4.6 million tons
lower, annual NOX emissions would be 700,000 tons lower, and
ozone season NOX emissions would be 100,000 tons lower in 2014,
compared to baseline 2014 projections (which will have dropped
from 2012 due to other federal and state requirements, thereby
lowering the 2014 baseline). See Table III.A-2 for projected
EGU emissions with the proposed rule compared to baseline, and
Table III.A-3 for projected EGU emissions with the proposed rule
compared to 2005 actual emissions. The reductions obtained
through the Transport Rule FIPs will help all but a very few
areas in the eastern part of the country come into attainment
with the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone standards and take major strides
toward helping states address nonattainment with the 2006 24-
hour average PM2.5 standard. See Table III.A-1 for proposed list
of covered states.
EPA is committed to fulfilling its responsibility to ensure
that downwind states receive the relief from upwind emissions
guaranteed under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) For the 24-hour PM2.5
standard, EPA’s air quality modeling shows that in the areas
with continuing non-attainment or maintenance problems, the remaining exceedances occur almost entirely in the winter
months. The relative importance of particle species such as
sulfate and nitrate, is quite different between summer and
winter. EPA is moving ahead before the final rule is published
to determine the extent to which this wintertime problem is
caused by emissions transported from upwind states. Further
study of the 24-hour PM2.5 results could lead to a number of
possible outcomes; EPA cannot judge the relative likelihood of
these outcomes at this time. To the extent possible, EPA plans
to finalize this rule with a full determination of, and remedy
for, significant contribution and interference with maintenance
for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. To that end, EPA is
expeditiously proceeding with examination of the residual
wintertime problem. (See full discussion in section IV.D.)

In the case of ozone, EPA must determine whether further NOx
reductions are warranted in certain upwind states that affect
two or three areas with relatively persistent ozone air quality
problems. To support a full significant contribution
determination for these states, EPA is expeditiously conducting
further analysis of NOX control costs, emissions reductions, air
quality impacts, and the nature of the residual air quality
issues. EPA’s current information indicates that considering NOx
reductions beyond the cost per ton levels proposed in this rule
will require analysis of reductions from source categories other than EGUs, as well as from EGUs. EPA believes that developing
supplemental information to consider NOx sources beyond EGUs
would substantially delay publication of a final rule beyond the
anticipated publication of spring 2011. EPA does not believe
that this effort should delay the reductions and large health
benefits associated with this proposed rule. Thus, EPA intends
to proceed with additional rulemaking to address fully the
residual significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance with the ozone standard as quickly
as possible. (See full discussion in section IV.D.)

This proposed rule is the first of several EPA rules to be
issued over the next 2 years that will yield substantial health
and environmental benefits for the public through regulation of
power plants. Fossil-fuel-fired power plants contribute a large
and substantial fraction of the emissions of several key air
pollutants, and the agency has statutory or judicial obligations
to make several regulatory determinations on power plant
emissions. The Administrator in January established improved
air quality as an Agency priority and announced plans to promote
a cleaner and more efficient power sector and have strong but
achievable reduction goals for SO2, NOX, mercury, and other air
toxics.”


In addition to this rule, other anticipated actions include
a section 112(d) rule for electric utilities to be proposed by March 2011, potential rules to address pollution transport under
revised NAAQS, revisions to new source performance standards for
coal and oil-fired utility electric generating units, and best
available retrofit technology (BART) and regional haze program
requirements to protect visibility. These actions, and their
relationship to this rule, are discussed further in section
III.E.
Ongoing reviews of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS could result in
revised NAAQS. To address any new NAAQS, EPA would propose
interstate transport determinations in future notices. Such
proposals could require greater emissions reductions from states
covered by this proposal and/or require reductions from states
not covered by this proposal. In addition, while this action
proposes to require reductions from the power sector only, it is
possible that reductions from other source categories could be
needed to address interstate transport requirements related to
any new NAAQS.

With this proposal, EPA is also responding to the remand of
the CAIR by the Court in 2008. CAIR, promulgated May 12, 2005
(70 FR 25162) requires 28 states and the District of Columbia to
adopt and submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to eliminate SO2 and NOX emissions that contribute
significantly to downwind nonattainment of the PM2.5 and ozone
NAAQS promulgated in July 1997. The CAIR FIPs, promulgated April 26, 2006 (71 FR 2532, regulate EGUs in the covered
states and achieve the emissions reductions requirements
established by CAIR until states have approved SIPs to achieve
the reductions. In July 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court found CAIR
and the CAIR FIPs unlawful. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896
(D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court’s original decision vacated CAIR.
Id. at 929-30. However, the Court subsequently remanded CAIR to
EPA without vacatur because it found that “allowing CAIR to
remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with
our opinion would at least temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR.” North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The CAIR requirements are
correctly in place and the CAIR’s regional control programs are
operating while EPA develops replacement rules in response to
the remand.

As described more fully in the remainder of this preamble,
the approaches used in this proposed rule to measure and address
each state’s significant contribution to downwind nonattainment
and interference with maintenance are guided by and consistent
with the Court’s opinion in North Carolina v. EPA and address
the flaws in CAIR identified by the Court therein.

-snip-

[Ryan Ruck]

EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust

August 1, 2010

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.

The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, "If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history." It further states, "We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event."

Read the letter to EPA signed by 21 senators including Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn

Many in the Oklahoma farming industry are opposed to the EPA's consideration. One farmer said the possible regulations are ridiculous.

"It's plain common sense, we don't want to do anything detrimental," said farmer Curtis Roberts. "If the dust is detrimental to us, it's going to be to everybody. We're not going to do anything to hurt ourselves or our farm."

Roberts, a fourth generation farmer and rancher in Arcadia, said regulating dust in rural areas will hurt farmers' harvest, cultivation and livelihood.

"Anytime you work ground, you're going to have dust. I don't know how they'll regulate it," Roberts said. "The regulations are going to put us down and keep us from doing things we need to be doing because of the EPA."

Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling said the rules could be detrimental to farmers across the Sooner State.

"We as an organization do not feel dust is a pollutant," Spradling said. "It would almost be impossible to comply with what's being addressed now from the EPA as in agriculture. We're doing everything we possibly can."

"It's just common sense, we don't like dust in the morning but it's something we got to live with," Roberts said.

[American Patriot]

Common sense? WTF? Who needs that shit?

[vector7]

Obama's new tax on...Rainwater!?



Would President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency really force Americans to pay a tax on "rainwater runoff" from homes and small businesses?

You bet they would. In fact, the EPA, under radical environmentalist Lisa Jackson, is proposing regulations to do just that.

Take a look at the EPA's own Federal Register filing, where the EPA generally describes the initiative it's proposing:

...requirements, including design or performance standards, for stormwater discharges from, at minimum, newly developed and redeveloped sites. EPA intends to propose regulatory options that would revise the NPDES regulations and establish a comprehensive program to address stormwater discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites and to take final action no later than November 2012. (Source)

This is bureaucratic-speak for having the EPA force cities and counties to limit stormwater runoff to levels the EPA deems acceptable. Limiting "rainwater runoff" will mean forcing homeowners and businesses to pay new taxes in order to rein in rainwater, and that's no pun intended.

Think about just how big-government this is. A Washington, D.C. bureaucracy plans on forcing your local county or city to slap new taxes on you and me because this big-government bureaucracy wants to micro-manage rainwater across the entire country. Already, several counties and cities across the United States are moving to pass new taxes and fees in anticipation of the new EPA rules, including cities in states as disparate as Florida, Ohio and Kansas.

For more details CLICK HERE

But really, this new EPA outrage is part of the pattern of the Obama Administration. Cap-and-trade is bogged down for now in the Senate (though they'll try to bring it back this year), so the liberals try to use an un-elected bureaucracy to pass their radical agenda. First, they declared that greenhouse gases are a "threat" to the environment and to health, so they're pushing new regulations that will in effect pass cap-and-trade without Congress having to act. Now, they're pushing this new "rainwater runoff" tax.

Just last month, Americans for Prosperity launched a national effort to stop this big government over-reach by the EPA. We're calling it the Regulation Reality Tour™, and we launched it in Arkansas with events across the state. Click HERE for photos. On April 19 we will begin the second leg of our tour in Colorado, with a third leg launching in Indiana and Ohio in early May. I hope to see you on the road as we take on Obama's EPA!

Our goal is simple: educate Americans on the threat to their freedoms and our economy from the EPA's arrogant, nutty agenda. The EPA's head, Lisa Jackson, attended the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen where she stated her intention to "transform" the way the American economy works using her bureaucracy. I was there in the room and heard her say it.

EPA is such a runaway bureaucracy at this point that only Congress can stop them. Thankfully, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has a proposal to do just that. Murkowski has a resolution of disapproval—which would stop EPA in its tracks—that has been gathering steam, but we need your help to put her over the top. CLICK HERE to take action and tell your senators to support S.J.Res. 26. Make sure they know you will hold them accountable if they don't help pass Murkowski's resolution. Any lawmakers who won't stand up to stop the EPA are complicit in the onerous regulations they are trying to pass.

Spring is here. All things begin anew. And that includes renewing the fight for our freedoms.

PS: I just finished a father/son trip with my 16-year-old twin boys. It was great fun. On the airplane especially, my sons talked about what they wanted to do in the years to come. Hearing them talk about their futures, I was reminded of something Ronald Reagan said – freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. As usual, President Reagan was right. Let's make sure we keep doing our part to ensure that our generation passes on to our children and grandchildren the same freedoms we enjoyed.

Please click here to contact your senators and tell them to stop the EPA.

[vector7]

TROUBLED WATERS

County officials say a fee may be needed to meet costly stormwater rules

By Matt Cooper
The Register-Guard

Published: Monday, Dec 13, 2010 05:00AM

Facing what they call increasingly expensive federal mandates, Lane County officials will consider levying a new fee on residents and businesses for county stormwater management. Officials say the charge — perhaps $48 to $132 a year — potentially could be imposed countywide outside the cities, or only in certain county-supervised areas. They caution, too, that they’re only studying whether the charge is realistic.

But critics say it’s a move toward an unnecessary tax — and one that voters might overturn.

Stormwater is rainfall that becomes polluted as it runs off roofs, parking lots and other impervious surfaces, and then flows into streams or ponds.

Federal law requires cities and counties to treat stormwater to reduce pollutants before the water reaches drinking-water sources such as groundwater and rivers. Governments commonly charge residents and businesses for the service.

Eugene charges medium-sized homes $9.82 per month and Springfield charges $11.32 per month, and both assess higher rates on larger properties, according to how much impervious surface they have, the county said.

Using the fees, Eugene has developed an elaborate stormwater management plan that includes educating the public to reduce dumping of chemicals or petroleum products on roads or driveways; street sweeping to pick up pollutants before they enter the stormwater system; improving natural buffers next to waterways; and improving and regularly cleaning out stormwater lines.

The county spends $500,000 annually on stormwater cleanup efforts — a little over 1 percent of the $44 million road fund — mostly on street sweeping, leaf pickup, ditch maintenance and contracts with the cities for work in areas immediately outside of city limits but inside urban growth boundaries, said Dan Hurley, a senior engineer with Lane County Public Works.

The county doesn’t charge residents and businesses specifically for the service. But that’s becoming a problem as the federal government issues tougher and more expensive mandates, Hurley said.

Consider the River Road/Santa Clara area, where property annexations into the city have created a checkerboard effect in which city and county residents often live next door to one another.

That means neighbors sometimes pay different amounts for the same stormwater service. But agreements between the city and the county ensure that each government does its fair share to manage stormwater, said Therese Walch, Eugene water resources manager.

In the River Road/Santa Clara area, the county pays for and manages stormwater with dry wells, ditches, street sweeping and — on major county roads — gutters, drains and pipes. The city, meanwhile, pays for and manages stormwater with street sweeping, dry wells and roadside gutters, drains, pipes and swales. Dry wells are gravel-lined pits into which stormwater flows and from which the water seeps into the ground.

The county pays for its work with its road fund, while the city pays for stormwater maintenance through the user fees levied on property owners citywide. But rather than trying to maintain these facilities according to city and county jurisdictional boundaries — which would be inefficient — the governments split the duties: The city sweeps some county streets and maintains some ditches, wells and pipes that serve county residents, and the county sweeps some city streets and maintains some drains, dry wells and pipes that serve city residents, Walch said.

In the River Road/Santa Clara area, the county and the city operate about 150 dry wells, trenches and manholes that collect stormwater and allow it to absorb into the ground. New federal regulations require the governments to ensure that the dry wells and other facilities don’t allow untreated stormwater to mix with groundwater, which can be a source of drinking water.

Removing or retrofitting dry wells and adding other upgrades such as natural catch basins or pipes could cost each government about $10 million in River Road/Santa Clara alone, officials said. Walch said the city is likely to increase its stormwater fee to help pay for its share, and the county is studying the establishment of a fee for its share.

The county and city also face the prospect that federal and state regulators eventually will require that new development does not contribute to stormwater volumes.

“We’re not exactly sure how that’s going to flesh out yet,” Hurley said. “There’s definitely the potential that within the urban growth boundary we’re looking at more stringent requirements.”

The county board voted 3-2 earlier this month to spend $100,000 from the road fund to hire a consultant who will study looming regulations, their costs and revenue options that include the stormwater fee, Hurley said.

The stormwater fee would not be charged in cities that already have one, and would possibly run between $4 and $11 per month. It’s yet to be determined whether the fee would apply countywide or only in certain areas such as River Road/Santa Clara, Hurley said.

County Commissioner Bill Dwyer, who voted for the study, said the fee has been in the works for 10 years, and that the county has few alternatives to address the federal mandates.

“The federal government, you can say what you want, they have the last word,” Dwyer said. “You don’t get in a fight that you can’t win.”

But Commissioner Faye Stewart, who dissented along with Commissioner Bill Fleenor, said he saw little value in pursuing study of a fee that voters would most likely overturn.

“I wanted to have us invite (state or federal officials) to ask, ‘If Lane County doesn’t have the money, what are the ramifications to county government?’  ” Stewart said.

The fee also has drawn criticism from a member of the county’s own budget committee, Cindy Land. Land, speaking only for herself and not the committee, called the fee an ill-advised “rainwater tax.”

There’s no certainty that the federal mandates will carry such a hefty price tag, Land said, and the dwindling road fund cannot afford the expense to study what is still an undefined problem. At current spending levels, the fund will be $40 million short of projected expenses in 2015-16, the county said.

“I am very disappointed in this really tough economic environment Lane County families are struggling in, that our county commissioners that are supposed to be protecting us are instead adding a water tax,” Land said.

[catfish]

This is very strange, especially when cities across the country are outlawing the collection of rainwater. The logic being they are removing water from the "Hydraulic Cycle". As we run out of water, things like this are only going to get worse. I wish I had a scanner so I could show everybody the handouts I get concerning future regulations on our water use, even if you have a well.

I recently watched Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show, all about water. Not sure how much of it is true, would love others take.

[American Patriot]

They already tried it here, it failed. I have already been fighting that battle. I told them I wasn't paying it. EVER.

[vector7]

EPA May Force Me to Shut Down Farm

Former Super Bowl champ Clint Didier on fighting back against government bureaucrats threatening to shut down farms.

[Ryan Ruck]

Mr. Didier,


He should run for the his Senator's seat that is up for vote in 2012.

These Federal agencies forcing their Liberal leaders' agenda via regulation rather than legislation need to be reigned in and put in their place. FCC, BATFE, EPA, and all the rest!

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Coal Crackdown Sends Message to Industry

January 17, 2011

A move by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke the long-standing permits for a mammoth coal mine in West Virginia sends a strong signal that President Obama plans to implement key parts of his agenda even though newly empowered Republicans can block his plans in Congress.

In the aftermath of the November elections, many political pundits predicted that the once-unchecked Obama legislative machine would turn it's energies to federal rulemaking as a way to circumvent Republicans on Capitol Hill. And the EPA’s decision last week suggests that those forecasts were spot-on.

Much to the consternation of the West Virginia delegation in Congress, the coal industry, and the working people of the Mountain State, the agency took the unprecedented step of revoking a mining permit that it had issued four years ago to Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.

The revocation prompted unusually harsh responses from West Virginia's two Democratic Senators.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller sent the president a letter which read, in part: "I am writing to express my outrage with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to veto a rigorously reviewed and lawfully issued permit at the Spruce Number 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This action not only affects this specific permit, but needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress."

Sen. Joe Manchin issued a statement which appeared to mock the EPA's permitting process.

"According to the EPA, it doesn't matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules,” Manchin wrote. “Why? They just change the rules."

There are many critics of Appalachian surface mining, called “mountaintop removal.” The practice uses heavy explosives to expose seams of coal in the ridges of Southern West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and Western Virginia. After the demolition crews flatten out the ridge tops into plateaus.

Critics claim that by changing the topography of the ridges of the coalfields, the practice is robbing mountaineers of their heritage. Environmentalists also claim that the rock and rubble from the mines kills fish, wildlife and pollutes water.

Indeed, it was a violation of the Clean Water Act, that prompted the EPA to revoke the permit at the Spruce No. 1 Mine.

"The agency took this action because this proposed mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend,” read the agency’s statement.

The coal industry defends the mining practices and the reclamation efforts that they say leaves usable land for development in the cramped hollows of Appalachia. But the central argument against the EPA’s move is about jobs.

"It's just the arrogance of the EPA,” said Bill Raney of the West Virginia Coal Association. “The people in Logan County want the permit. It's important to the company. It's critically important to Logan County."

The environmental concerns over surface mining were well-known when the EPA first issued the permit in 2007. Since that time, Arch Coal has made millions of dollars in infrastructure investments in the mine, perhaps the largest ever in the region --investments which are now threatened by the EPA permit revocation.

" I don't think it's the American way," says Brad Blakeman, an advisor to former President George W. Bush. "I don’t think we rule retro-actively when businesses invested a lot of money, legally, in a permitting system that was certainly above board and they followed every rule and procedure that EPA had at the time and now to be told after-the-fact that this is now improper or legal, I think is wrong.”

Blakeman says it sends a chilling message to other industries about the power of the Federal government. He suggests that it will be up to the other two branches of our government , the courts and the Congress to decide whether the EPA's revocation of this permit , and perhaps others, stands.

[American Patriot]

If I were President, I'd do an EO to close down the BATFE, Dept of Education, EPA. I'd do a separate EO to restructure the FCC. There would be no "control" of voices on the airwaves. Freedom of speech.

There would only be controls on the licensing as it should be.

[vector7]

Obama's War On Coal

Energy: Keeping a campaign vow to bankrupt the industry, the administration revokes the permit for an approved, working coal mine in West Virginia. Guess those electric cars will have to get their energy elsewhere.



We and others have warned that in the wake of November's "shellacking," the Obama administration would attempt to implement its agenda through regulations and rule making. As West Virginia's coal industry has found, it matters not even if you follow the rules. In pursuit of this agenda, the rules can be changed on the fly.

The Environmental Protection Agency has revoked the coal mining permit for Arch Coal's Spruce Mine No. 1 in West Virginia's Logan County. The permit was issued four years ago and since then Arch Coal, which provides 16% of America's coal supply, has followed every jot and tittle of the rules it was to operate under.

After Arch invested $250 million in the mountaintop mining operation, it will be shut down. When fully operational, it would have employed 215 miners directly, with another 300 jobs in support services. These are, pun intended, "shovel-ready" jobs.

As we have warned, the EPA said it was acting under the authority of the Clean Water Act, saying the mine employed "destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend."

Funny, the EPA didn't think so four years ago, when a Section 404 permit was issued, suggesting the extent to which this administration has politicized science. As if business and energy weren't already operating in an uncertain regulatory climate, this action essentially renders worthless every government permit, approval or promise, particularly in an energy industry the administration seems determined to shut down.

West Virginia is the second-largest coal producer in the U.S., which itself is the Saudi Arabia of coal. The maligned fossil fuel provides $26 billion for the West Virginia economy annually, supports 60,000 jobs and pays $1.2 billion in wages for West Virginia families. All this, and much more nationally, is in jeopardy since coal provides half of America's electricity.

This action, announced by Chair Nancy Sutley of the Council on Environmental Quality, prompted a sharp letter to President Obama from Democrat Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

Revocation of the "vigorously reviewed and lawfully issued permit," he said, has a ripple effect and "needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress."

"According to the EPA, it doesn't matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules," said West Virginia's other Democrat senator, freshman Joe Manchin. "Why? They just change the rules." The coal industry provides needed "energy for our country's growing appetite for electricity," Manchin noted, promising he would fight for West Virginia's "way of life."

Hey, guys, President Obama and Vice President Biden are merely being true to their word.

In promising a cap-and-trade system during the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama stipulated: "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered 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."

Unable to get that through Congress, President Obama plans to use the EPA as a regulatory bludgeon to implement cap-and-trade by stealth, bankrupting the fossil fuel industry and causing energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket."

We are reminded of Vice President Joe Biden's comment in a rope line during the campaign: "We're not supporting 'clean coal.' Guess what? China's building two dirty coal plants (every week). And it's polluting the United States. It's causing people to die."

He went on to say, "No coal plants in America. Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."

We have an oil drilling moratorium in parts of the Gulf of Mexico and off both coasts. ANWR and other energy-rich areas in and off Alaska are off-limits, as are vast areas in the West. Nuclear power is stalled and even natural gas is under attack for its use of so-called "fracking" technology.

From just where, Mr. President, will your touted electric cars get their energy?