recent image
The River, the EPA and the Tenth Amendment
Nancy Churchill
 April 24 2024 at 01:17 pm
more_horiz
post image
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
recent image
Carbon Credits Are A Con
Numapepi
 April 22 2024 at 02:43 pm
more_horiz
post image
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

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

[143287, 153593, 148356, 60675, 1835, 132224, 2, 153914, 17088, 112609, 150682, 2314, 134402, 1822, 153889, 125038, 153381, 33581, 154184, 148910, 153807, 36134, 154181, 154169, 154149, 154180, 133841, 58659, 154179, 154176, 92022, 154137, 146843, 154147, 154175, 154157, 154173, 49133, 154163, 614, 154091, 154072, 147825, 48117, 101422, 47054, 154143, 154099, 90996, 154124]

Recently Active Thinkers