ts. Think Responsibly

The River, the EPA and the Tenth Amendment

Nancy Churchill

April 24 2024 at 01:17 pm

A contentious Superfund proposal for Washington’s Upper Columbia River The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Founding Fathers feared a distant and powerful government, and made it clear in the Tenth Amendment that local control was to be the primary form of government. How far we have come from that ideal of local control. Congress has delegated too much power to federal agencies like the EPA. The Washington State Legislature did the same delegation of power to the Washington Department of Ecology. These two powerful environmental agencies in essence nullify the tenth Amendment by removing local control in favor of top-down solutions to local environmental issues. Local government officials end up sidelined and nearly powerless to protect the interests of the taxpayers they were elected to serve. The environment has been used as the excuse for state and federal government overreach many times. Saving the northern spotted owl was the excuse used to destroy the logging industry in Washington along with many thriving communities. Today, it appears logging wasn’t the problem; it was another owl species. Perhaps if someone had listened to the locals who knew the area, the little northern spotted owls wouldn’t be nearly extinct today and our timber industry and small towns would still be thriving. Local control matters. Motivated by money and power In February, the Biden Administration released $1 billion for Superfund cleanup. Governor Inslee and the Washington Department of Ecology immediately started working to get a piece of that action. What better project than a “cleanup” of 150-mile-long Lake Roosevelt? This is a potentially massive project that could be used to funnel taxpayer dollars to “cleanup” projects for years and years. From the Epoch Times: “Can we use all this money? There’s so much money now,” said Becky Kelley, a climate policy adviser to Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat. “The answer is yes. There are a whole lot of new resources, but we can put all of them and more to use.” However, the state has limited personnel to manage so many different environmental programs! “There is a capacity limit, in terms of delivery of programs on the part of state agencies,” Washington House Transportation Committee Chairman Jake Fey, a Democrat, said. “...The state should consider private sector contractors to help set up programs and get money flowing,” he continued. You can safely assume that “private sector contractors” are lining up to eat at the trough of government funding. Forget local control. There’s too much easy money floating around. If Gov. Inslee is successful in getting the Superfund designation, the state and federal government will assume a great deal of political and financial control over a very conservative area of the state. Never mind existing agreements and local concerns Never mind that the studies mandated in a 2006 legal agreement with one of the polluters, Tech American, have not yet been completed. Never mind that significant remediation has already been completed. Never mind that the only way the health assessment could be used to justify additional cleanup required the EPA to dramatically revise their standards for hazardous levels of lead in the environment. Never mind that the lake water meets drinking water standards. Never mind the popular fishing and recreation lake is clean enough to draw millions of happy recreation visitors every year. Never mind that local government officials have expressed total opposition to the proposed Superfund designation for Lake Roosevelt (aka the upper Columbia River), due to the potential impact on tourism, agriculture irrigation and local businesses. The county commissioners represented by the Eastern Washington Council of Governments are fighting to make sure the EPA doesn’t kill their economies the same way that the northern spotted owl was used as the excuse to destroy the communities dependent on the timber industry. May 6 Deadline: Submit your comments to the EPA We have until May 6 to submit comments on the proposed listing on the National Priorities List. Comment on the Upper Columbia River Superfund proposal here: bit.ly/4attNZp. If you're looking for more information on this very complex issue, please review the Upper Columbia River series at the Dangerous Rhetoric substack (nancydchurchill.substack.com). What do you think about the imposition of nearly total federal control of the upper Columbia River by the EPA and WA Department of Ecology? Does the ENTIRE 150-mile reach of Lake Roosevelt need to be a Superfund, or just the Stevens County uplands or the town of Northport? Given that the Human Health Assessment showed no real danger from lead until the EPA changed the exposure requirement, is there enough lead in the Uplands soil to even justify this listing? Given that the heavy metal pollution that does exist falls to the river bottom, and is annually buried deeper and deeper in runoff silt, should we be be disturbing this natural process of heavy metal mitigation? Nature appears to be healing herself. Would "cleanup" actually increase the amount of pollution in the river water? Why not wait until the final reports due from the 2006 Agreement have been completed? These reports will answer all these questions about the area involved and the best mitigation processes for cleanup. Until then, it appears that this proposal is politically motivated rather than addressing a well-defined need for cleanup. It's almost impossible to get off the Superfund list once we're on it. Is a Superfund designation what's best for Eastern Washington and the Upper Columbia River? Please submit your comment to the EPA. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Sources: 1) Comment on the Proposed UCR Superfund: https://bit.ly/4attNZp 2) US Constitution 10th Amendment: https://bit.ly/3UsdXZT 3) Biden Admin Releases $1 Billion for Superfund Cleanup, The Epoch Times, 02/28/24, https://bit.ly/3UcUxXI 4) It’s the Moment of Truth for the Northern Spotted Owl, Audubon.org, Fall 2022, https://bit.ly/4d7Zw4E 5) Dangerous Rhetoric Substack, nancydchurchill.substack.com. 6) Eastern Washington Council of Governments, Letter to EPA, 01/16/2024, https://bit.ly/3W9XnPT 7) EPA Teck |EPA Teck | 2006 UCR Settlement Agreement, https://bit.ly/3Vnhrhk

Upper Columbia River: Comment on the proposed...

Nancy Churchill

April 16 2024 at 08:41 pm

This is part seven of a series of articles about the proposed EPA Superfund site on the upper Columbia River. The previous articles are available at thinkspot.com and nancydchurchill.substack.com. In this article, we discover where to make comments and what to consider as your write your comment. Should the Upper Columbia River be an EPA Superfund Site? In this series, we have explored the scope of the past pollution, the size of the target area, and the remediation that has already been accomplished. We took a look at the massive size of the Grand Coolie Dam, the enormous length of the proposed site, and the importance of the Columbia Basin project to eastern Washington agriculture. We’ve taken a careful look at the 2006 Settlement agreement with Teck American which mandated certain studies be completed under the supervision of the EPA BEFORE a superfund designation would be considered. In spite of the fact that the studies are not complete, the EPA is pushing for an early designation of a Superfund for the UCR, and against the recommendation of local government leaders. Why? The Human Health Risk Assessment is the only one of the scientific studies which has been completed. These study results on their face do not appear to support the need for a Superfund site. Environmental impact studies are still ongoing, and are expected to be completed in the near future. Feasibility studies, also incomplete, will make recommendations about what remediation actions should be done, and how much of the proposed site should actually be considered for designation. Without these missing studies, it seems like the EPA is pushing to make a decision without important scientific data (EPA Fact Sheet). Who Benefits, Who Loses? The EPA, the Inslee Administration (including Washington’s Department of Ecology) get enormous federal and state political power over a large section of Eastern Washington and the vital upper Columbia River. The Spokane Tribe and the Confederated Colville tribes also gain political power and control. All of these entities stand to benefit from payments made the environmental industrial complex for “cleanup.” Perhaps some of the area will be cleaned up. That remains to be seen. The local communities, local businesses, and local governments believe this proposed Superfund designation, which is not yet proven to be needed, will devastate their economies and businesses. This wouldn’t be the first time that entire communities and thriving economic sectors have been shut down in Washington state in the name of “protecting nature.” Remember the northern spotted owl? Turns out that the problem wasn’t logging, but an entire sector of the economy was shut down by mistake. Do we want to repeat that mistake in Eastern Washington? URGENT: Submit your comments to the EPA. We only have until May 6 to submit comments on the proposed listing on the National Priorities List. Comment on the Upper Columbia River Superfund proposal here: bit.ly/4attNZp. On the EPA Comment page, there is a pop-up page with a some tips to consider as you make your comment: "These tips are meant to help the public submit comments that have an impact and help agency policy makers improve federal regulations: Read and understand the regulatory docvment you are commenting on. Feel free to reach out to the agency with questions,. Be concise but support your claims. Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted. Address trade-offs and opposing views in your comment. There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment. The comment process is not a vote—one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters." The complete text of these tips is available at: bit.ly/3PzmV4M. What’s best for Eastern Washington? What ever you do, it's time now to make a comment on this proposed Superfund listing. We all need to show up and let the EPA know what we think about Lake Roosevelt. Should it become a Superfund site or not? Just remember, it's almost impossible to get off the Superfund list once we're on it. Is that what's best for Eastern Washington and the Upper Columbia River? Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Sources: 1) 2006 Settlement w/ Teck American: https://bit.ly/3Vnhrhk 2) EPA News Release 3/5/2024. https://bit.ly/4acaKmm 3) DR Human Health Risk Assessment: https://bit.ly/4cDamiH 4) EPA Fact Sheet: https://bit.ly/3Pp3cF2 5) Governments supporting: https://bit.ly/3xxfoxk 6) Governments opposed: https://bit.ly/3UhklDw 7) Comment on the Proposed UCR Superfund: https://bit.ly/4attNZp 8) EPA Commenter's Tips: https://bit.ly/3PzmV4M

Stupid Scientists

Numapepi

April 07 2024 at 02:29 pm

Stupid Scientists Posted on April 7, 2024 by john Dear Friends, May God save us from stupid scientists, busily engaged in schemes to destroy the world, in an effort to save it from a phantasm. From cooling the planet by spreading chemicals in the atmosphere, to putting up bird choppers (windmills), they’re doing more harm than good. Some half wit directly injecting household garbage directly into the aquifer is doing less damage. The fundamental problem is, people with too much education, too much money and not a whit of wisdom… wielding too much power. No one asked me if I want the planet cooler. Did anyone ask you? I’m an old guy, I like it hot, Je deteste la froid. So much for my opinion… and yours. What if their experiments go awry? They could turn the Earth back into a snowball grinding away our civilization in another Great Unconformity. It’s one thing to push a swindle but quite another to believe your own lies. Then act on them. Showing a total lack of wisdom. The global warming swindle is effectively proven false. How? By dozens upon dozens of failed predictions. In science and under the scientific method, if a hypothesis is proven wrong by experiment over and over, that hypothesis is considered flawed. Not global warming. The more it’s proven false, despite data tampering to promote it, the more shrill the experts get. People who are the best liars, practice their lies, until the lie becomes the truth in their own minds. A seminal liar can take a polygraph and pass standing on her head. The trouble with this tactic is, the liar starts believing their own lies… often to their own detriment. Instead of damaging the intended victim. So we have experts, who have convinced themselves their scam is the truth, setting themselves to cooling the planet. To save it. The trouble is, none of their predictions (hypothesis) have been proven correct. Indeed they’ve been proven false many times. Yet the experts forge ahead with their plans to cool the planet. Despite their total lack of understanding how the climate actually works. One way to know their models are wrong is they discount the sun. If the sun were removed, but CO2 raised, they predict the planet would warm. A stunning prediction. Perhaps before screwing with the only habitable planet we have, it might be wise to do a few experiments on another planet, first? See what happens? Before stupid scientists make Earth uninhabitable. To meet EU climate goals the EU is shutting down farming. You may not have seen it on the mockingbird media, because the elite don’t want it common knowledge, but farmers across Europe are protesting the climate laws. Stupid scientists are convinced Europe doesn’t need farms. They stink, farmers are too independent, and farms harm the environment. Plus, most people get their food from the grocer anyway. So the experts are forcing farmers to sell their family farms, to wild the land again. EU bureaucrats are in negotiations with South American nations, to clear cut the rain forest, insuring elites stay fat. All done to save the planet from global warming. Without getting into it, wilding farms in Europe and clear cutting rain forest, is obviously environmentally counter productive. The global warming swindle has got out of hand. The stupid scientists are implementing possibly civilization ending strategies, to stop global warming… believing their own lies. Like jumping in a frozen lake to protect yourself from saint Elmo’s fire. The plasma’s harmless but the icy water will kill you in seconds. If it were just the experts killing themselves, oh well, they’re sovereign human beings, but they’re threatening us too. We just got over their last disaster, Covid, which killed millions, and the vaccine that wasn’t. Now they want to make a snowball Earth. The morons. Before it’s too late. It may be wise to contact your representative, and demand laws be passed, making it illegal to experiment with climate changing technologies. At least until we have an actual idea how planetary climate works. Sincerely, John Pepin

Upper Columbia River: Governments Supporting a...

Nancy Churchill

April 02 2024 at 04:06 pm

This is part five of a series of articles about the proposed EPA Superfund site on the upper Columbia River. The previous articles are available at thinkspot.com and nancydchurchill.substack.com. In this article, we look at the governmental entities which support the proposal to create an upper Columbia River superfund. The Federal Government: The EPA The proposal to list an EPA Superfund site starts with the U.S. Government through the Environmental Protection Agency. In the case of the upper Columbia River, the EPA negotiated a settlement with one of the primary polluters, Teck American. Teck American agreed to conduct the scientific studies (the RI/FS) necessary to determine whether a Superfund was warranted, and to do the work under the supervision of the EPA. Teck American paid for the studies, and also completed remediation in the Steven’s County uplands. The company also made significant improvements in the smelter located near Trail, BC. The studies and remediation have been underway since 2006, and there were two additional studies outstanding before the determination for a Superfund site would normally be made. However, the Biden Administration has decided to recommend the designation before the studies are complete, claiming that the process is taking too long and that the Human Health Risk Assessment is enough proof to jump straight to Superfund designation. The State of Washington: Governor Inslee For Governor Inslee, this matter is about gaining access to the Superfund money from the federal government. In a previous article in this series, we’ve discovered that the Human Health Risk Assessment showed the water to be clean, the fish to be safe to eat, most beaches safe to play on, and many properties remediated. No scientific data was presented regarding actual health impacts in actual residents, just “estimated” harms. However, Inslee claims that there are “unacceptable risks to human health and the environment”. In his letter to the EPA, Inslee also claims “… only very limited progress on site investigation and cleanup has occurred to date.” That claim is simply not accurate according to the scientific documents submitted by the EPA. Inslee is very aware that when Teck has completed the studies, their responsibilities under the 2006 agreement are complete. In fact, in 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals limited Teck’s liability for upland area cleanup. Inslee points out that “Without Superfund monies, only limited funding options will be available to address… cleanup requirements identified in the forthcoming cleanup plan.” But without the RI/FS, there’s no way to know how much more cleanup will need to be done, or where, or how. The Tribes: The Colville and the Spokane Both the Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribe support the superfund designation. Their reservations border Lake Roosevelt. The Spokane Reservation is located at the Columbia River’s confluence with the Spokane River, and the Colville Reservation has a long border on the lake from Grand Coulee Dam northward to just south of the traditional fishing grounds at Kettle Falls. Both tribes say the proposed site includes lands that are part of their traditional homeland. According to several sources, the tribes believe an environmental injustice was done, and that the river and uplands should be completely remediated and returned as much as possible to a more pristine state. In a letter to the EPA, the Spokane Tribe points out that most of the research has been done in the uplands, rather than in the areas closer to the Spokane Reservation. “We do not believe currently planned RI/FS activities will adequately characterize risks in downriver reservoir areas…” The Spokane letter continues, “Once listed, the EPA will have access to the Superfund to timely proceed with remedial actions…” The Colville Tribes press release states, “...a listing unlocks badly needed funding for environmental restoration.” Points to consider The goal of this series is to prepare you to make an educated and influential comment on this proposal for a Superfund site. Here’s some of the points I’m currently considering. Yes, there was significant pollution released into the river. However, because of the remote location and massive size of the watershed, it does not appear the pollution has had a significant impact on the overall health of the people that live in the region or those who visit the lake for fishing and recreation. The Human Health Risk Assessment, the only scientific study currently completed, does not make a convincing case for an expedited and rushed listing. Scientific studies which will define the actual extent and impact of the pollution on the ecosystem have not yet been completed. The feasibility studies which will recommend proposed cleanup sites and methods also have not yet been completed. Until these studies are complete, why this sudden rush to list the site? The studies are due in the near future. Shouldn’t we “follow the science”? Furthermore, by rushing to list the site, it appears the EPA is violating the terms of the 2006 Agreement, which specified that these studies would be completed prior to the EPA recommending a listing. Is it possible this would actually slow down the future cleanup process if the EPA is sued for violating the agreement? In the next article in this series, we’ll review the positions of local elected leaders—those closest to and most responsible for the well being, safety and prosperity of the people who elected them. The local elected officials universally oppose the proposed listing at this time. Why? Stay tuned. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. You can hit the thinkspot tip jar OR support this channel at this link. Your support allows me to continue to bring you more 🔥 Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. Sources: 1) Lake Roosevelt Forum, EPA Nears Decision on Proposal to Add the Upper Columbia River Study Area to the National Priorities List, https://bit.ly/3IwhPT1 2) Lake Roosevelt Forum, Inslee Letter of Concurrence UCR Superfund Proposal, https://bit.ly/3IV8pkl 3) EPA, Spokane Tribes Concurrence with UCR Superfund Proposal, https://bit.ly/3PEfXf6 4) Collville Tribes Press Release 24-03-05, Colville’s Support UCR Superfund Proposal; https://bit.ly/3vIAB6N 5) Lake Roosevelt Forum, Local Governments respond to the EPA, https://bit.ly/43AT0zb 6) Dangerous Rhetoric, Part 4 Human Health Risk Assessment; https://bit.ly/4cDami 7) EPA Teck | 2006 UCR Settlement Agreement. https://bit.ly/3Vnhrhk

Carbon Credits Are A Con

Numapepi

April 22 2024 at 02:43 pm

Carbon Credits Are A Con Posted on April 22, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, carbon credits are simply another way for the rich to steal from the poor. By creating an entirely arbitrary market, they can “create wealth” in the form of script, and sell it to dupes. Making real money. Then that swindle increases the cost to everyone for everything. Which, obviously, effects poor people far more than the rich, who are getting richer, selling carbon credits. What makes this scam so vile, is it pretends to be virtue, when it’s in fact vice. Even if anthropogenic climate change were real, which it isn’t, the carbon credit system would still be a game. That’s why I believe that the carbon credit swindle needs to be outlawed, the swindlers charged, tried and sent to prison. Anything less would encourage the elite to come up with other scams to pull on us. The world we live in has gone to the dogs, because there have been no consequences for criminal actions, by our elites. Moreover, they’ve exploited law as a means to injustice. Using law vindictively, egoistically and unjustly. The myriad of absurd charges against Trump are proof enough. Then there’s the fact, the more criminals are allowed to commit crimes, the worse those crimes will become. It’s human nature. Ask yourself, have any of the elite been punished for any crimes in the last few decades? What were the consequences for starting a decade long war based on lies? How about consequences for the Russian collusion hoax, that tied up our government for years, and cost this nation tens of millions? Who could forget the Covid pandemic, created by the elite, along with the vaccine that isn’t? The carbon credit swindle is just another in a long list of crimes by our elites. Crimes against humanity. Because, who can argue stealing from widows, the elderly and orphans… is noble? It’s malevolent. Raising the cost of everything breaks the backs of those barely making it. If the wealth the elite skim off the poor, with inflation generated by carbon credits, forces the working poor to choose between food and electricity, that’s the price the elite are willing for the poor to pay. With their bellies full of fillet mignon, pom du terre avec fromage, and chocolate souffle for dessert, they don’t feel any hunger pains from the shortages created by carbon credits. Lowering the lot of Man to make superfluous wealth… now that’s progressive! It’s a brilliant crime. You can tell people’s intentions by their actions. Our words being a poor determiner of intent. A liar will tell you what you want to hear all day. But their actions won’t match their rhetoric. Which always means they don’t believe their rhetoric. It’s manipulation. Let’s say for example, someone is in a panic about the planet warming, and extinguishing all life… due to CO2 in the atmosphere. Forget that historically CO2 in the air has been exponentially higher than today. So much so that if you went far enough back in time you would die of CO2 poisoning. Be that as it may, I would act in a way that accords with my stated fear. I wouldn’t buy a house one foot above high tide, nor would I fly a private jet to Paris for lunch, but I would lead by example… not from a luxury suite on my personal yacht. The climate change swindle always accompanies the over population scam. The two work hand in hand. Heavens to Betsy, the planet can’t take more people, let alone handle the teeming masses of third world nations, raising their standard of living! That’s why the jet set are morally obligated to hold the poor down. It’s for the planet. If a few billion die of want, then so be it, their deaths will result in less carbon output. How virtuous of the elite, who deny themselves nothing, yet deny others life itself. Nuclear power can’t be implemented, because, “split wood not atoms.” Of course, you can’t burn wood either, because it contributes to climate change. Gas stoves are out as well since they use fossil fuel. You’ll have to eat your bugs raw. Else you could tell everyone… Carbon credits are a swindle! Sincerely, John Pepin

Upper Columbia River: Governments Against a...

Nancy Churchill

April 08 2024 at 09:18 pm

This is part six of a series of articles about the proposed EPA Superfund site on the upper Columbia River. The previous articles are available at thinkspot.com and nancydchurchill.substack.com. In this article, we look at the governments and political factors OPPOSED to the proposal to create a superfund. Who supports the superfund listing? In part five, we reviewed the governments that support the proposal to list the Upper Columbia River (Lake Roosevelt) as an EPA superfund site. The governments supporting include the Biden administration via the Department of Ecology, Washington governor Jay Inslee, the Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribe. However, there is a significant resistance coming from local political leaders at several levels. This article explores their stated concerns. Eastern Washington Council of Governments The Eastern Washington Council of Governments (EWCOG) is composed of the following counties: Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Lincoln, Kittitas, Okanogan, Pend Orielle, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman and Yakima. In a letter to the EPA, the 16 member counties of the EWCOG “oppose the listing of Lake Roosevelt from Grand Coulee Dam to the Canadian boarder and the uplands area of the Columbia River on the National Priorities List or any Superfund designation at this time. Furthermore, we will reconsider that position only after the completion of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies are complete and we have had adequate time to review these documents and the data that accompanies them.” Lincoln and Stevens Counties Lincoln County lies to the south of Lake Roosevelt. The Lincoln County commissioners “strongly oppose the listing of Lake Roosevelt on the National Priorities List as a Superfund site.” Since the entire northern border of Lincoln County lies along Lake Roosevelt, it seems like the county commissioners would be the first to know if there was a significant health or environmental issue in southern Lake Roosevelt. The commissioners express concern that there will be a “devastating effect” on the economy of Lincoln County due to the proposed designation. Their significant farming and recreation sectors could be greatly impacted to the detriment of all the residents in the county. Stevens County lies to the east of Lake Roosevelt and includes the “uplands” area. In a letter to the EPA, the Stevens County commissioners stated, “We as local elected officials do not concur with the EPA that the NPL listing is needed or warranted at this time. We do not relinquish our authority as elected officials over to the governor, and we oppose any NPL or Superfund listing until such time as the RI/FS process is complete and any listing is reviewed, based on science, targeted in areas needing cleanup (if any), and any cleanup can be done safely to an agreed upon standard.” The letter continues, “We also dispute the fact that even unidentified properties require cleanup. EPA representatives have alluded to the Uplands area needing cleanup as ‘residential.’ In fact, we commissioners set the zoning standards for all properties in Stevens County. Only a small portion of sites tested are zoned as residential.” Concerns with the Governor In a letter to Governor Inslee, the Stevens County Commissioners point out Inslee did not consult with any of the local elected officials or the local health department. The rush to a NPL listing also violates the 2006 Agreement which stipulated the RI/FS would be completed prior to any attempt to list. The commissioners believe the Governor has not fully considered the negative economic impacts on the region, which they believe will negatively impact the massive Columbia Basin agriculture industry. The commissioners are concerned that people will not want to come to the area, harming businesses and property values. The commissioners point out that protecting the public health and safety also means protecting the local businesses and economies. For these reasons, not a single county commissioner in Eastern Washington support the NPL listing at this time. Other Elected Opposition In Congress, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers opposes the Superfund listing. In the state Legislature, Senator Shelly Short, R-Addy, has been involved in this matter since the early 2000s when she worked as an aide for U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt. She also opposes the designation of Lake Roosevelt as a Superfund site. In the next article in this series, I’ll explain the EPA’s rules for making a comment on this proposal and provide links to the comment page. As you have seen from this series, this proposed listing is a very complex issue which is important to everyone in the region. I hope you will take the time to comment on this important issue during the month of April. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. You can hit the thinkspot tip jar OR support this channel at this link. Your support allows me to continue to bring you more 🔥 Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. Sources: 1) Lake Roosevelt Forum, EPA Nears Decision on Proposal to Add the Upper Columbia River Study Area to the National Priorities List, https://bit.ly/3IwhPT1 2) Lake Roosevelt Forum, Local Governments respond to the EPA, https://bit.ly/43AT0zb 3) Stevens County letter to Governor Inslee, https://bit.ly/4aeOxoi

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

All Thinkers

Search

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Search close

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Cookies on ts.close

Actions Listclose

Please confirm your account

Description

New Stream close

In this stream

Contributors I Follow

Followersclose

AboutClose

thinkspot TERMS OF USEclose

Search

Cookies on ts.

Actions List

New Stream

Followers

About

thinkspot TERMS OF USE