$6 Million Provided By USDA For Storms And Flood In 10 States: "
"Our thoughts are with the families and communities across many parts of the country that have been affected by this severe weather," said Vilsack. "USDA personnel in our state and local offices are coordinating with their state and local government counterparts in order to provide much-needed assistance as quickly as possible to communities that have been hard hit by this string of terrible tragedies."
In partnership and through local government sponsors, the EWP Program provides assistance to areas that have been damaged by natural disasters, such as floods, windstorms, drought, and wildfires. The EWP Program safeguards lives and property by installing conservation measures to reduce storm water runoff and prevent soil erosion, as well as remove watershed impairments such as debris caught in culverts and under bridges.
In response to the recent storms and floods, NRCS provided $600,000 in EWP Program financial and technical assistance to each of its 10 NRCS state offices so that field personnel can swiftly begin work on projects that reduce or remove dangerous threats to public safety and infrastructure.
To the extent possible, NRCS state and field personnel are surveying damaged areas and working with their local partners to identify the full scope of the damage and prepare disaster recovery projects. NRCS will evaluate the need on a continuous basis for additional assistance to the impacted communities.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wonk Room » Maryland To Sue Chesapeake Energy For PA Fracking Blowout
Wonk Room » Maryland To Sue Chesapeake Energy For PA Fracking Blowout:
Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler now “plans to sue the company for violating federal anti-pollution laws” including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), as a press release issued yesterday explains:
Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler now “plans to sue the company for violating federal anti-pollution laws” including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), as a press release issued yesterday explains:
On April 19, thousands of gallons of fracking fluids were released from a well owned and operated by Chesapeake Energy into Towanda Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River, which supplies 45% of the fresh water in the Chesapeake Bay. In his letter, Attorney General Gansler notified the company that at the close of the required 90-day notice period, the State intends to file a citizen suit and seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under RCRA for solid or hazardous waste contamination of soils and ground waters, and the surface waters and sediments of Towanda Creek and the Susquehanna River. The State also intends to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under the CWA for violation of the CWA’s prohibition on unpermitted pollution to waters of the United States.
“Companies cannot expose citizens to dangerous chemicals that pose serious health risks to the environment and to public health,” said Gansler in the press release. “We are using all resources available to hold Chesapeake Energy accountable for its actions.”
High court erases recent environmental victory | Michigan Messenger
High court erases recent environmental victory | Michigan Messenger:
The case — Anglers of the Au Sable v. Dept. of Environmental Quality — involved Merit Energy’s DEQ-permitted plan to move contaminated water into a different watershed by pipeline and discharge it into Kolke Creek, which flows into the Au Sable river in Otsego County.
A group of anglers and riverfront property owners sued the state and Merit Energy, claiming that the plan violated their riparian water rights and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. The Otsego circuit court agreed and blocked the discharge plan as unreasonable, though it allowed for the possibility that a reasonable plan could be determined.
Wishing to definitively block moves to transfer contaminated water between watersheds, the plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals ruled that the state could grant Merit the right to use Kolke Creek as a disposal site. It also found that the Anglers could not sue the state for permitting the discharge plan.
Last year the Michigan Supreme Court, which then had a Democratic majority, agreed to hear an appeal of this decision. The court indicated that it was ready to reexamine two controversial supreme court cases — Preserve the Dunes Inc v. Dept. of Environmental Quality and Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle — that narrowed citizen options for legal action to stop environmental damage. Both of those cases had been decided while the court was under Republican control.
In 4-3 decision issued at the very end of the year and authored by Justice Alton Davis, a Democrat who had lost his reelection bid, the court rejected DEQ and business arguments that people should not be allowed sue until after damage occurs. It also reaffirmed that the Michigan Environmental Protection Act allows anyone to sue to block environmental damage.
The decision was celebrated by environmentalists but it was pretty clear that the Republican majority that was set to retake the court in January saw the matter differently and that future cases might reverse the gain.
In January Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette asked the court to reconsider Anglers of the Au Sable v. DEQ. He said that allowing people to sue to the state over permitting decisions would harm Michigan’s economy.
It did not take long for the new court to act. In an order released last week the court took the unusual step of vacating the Anglers of the Au Sable ruling without any new information. The court decided that the case had been moot when it was decided because the company has abandoned its plans to discharge the water into the creek, and that the previous court should not have considered it.
“I have a hard time seeing this being anything other that a political or ideological decision,” said Nick Schroeck, executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, which together with the National Wildlife Federation filed a brief in support of the Anglers/plaintiffs. “Ordinarily a court will not rehear a case when no underlying facts have changed.”
“I think it was an overreach on the part of the court. Hopefully people will notice this and remember it when they vote for the supreme court justices in the future.”
Though the court’s move is a disappointment for those who worked on the case and believed it had been decided, Jim Olson, who represented the Anglers, said that there is some consolation in the fact that the opinion also vacates the court of appeals ruling that had made it significantly more difficult for citizens to sue over environmental damage.
“The silver lining is that those problems in the court of appeals decision were erased,“ he said. “Michigan precedent prior to this case remains. Diversions of our watershed that diminish flow and level can’t be done.”
“We are back to where we were before the decision — questions remain over when the state is liable for permitting damage.”
Schroeck and Olson both agree that the lack of clarity over how the state can be held responsible for issuing permits for activities that destroy natural resources is especially dangerous given the fact that cash-strapped state agencies have diminishing capacity to evaluate permit applications and are under increasing pressure to streamline and speed up permitting.
“The idea that we must wait for harm to occur is dangerous,” Olson said. “The courts are favoring industry and weakening the rights of citizens and of the state, which is compromised by budget crisis. Not only do we have a budget crisis, our most valuable asset can’t be protected and conserved as it should be.”
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Search for “watershed” - Technorati
Search for “watershed” - Technorati:
Michigan Messenger — Authority 666
— involved Merit Energy’s DEQ-permitted plan to move contaminated water into a different watershed by pipeline and discharge it […] . Diversions of our watershed that diminish flow and level can’t be done.” “We are back to where we were before the decision
High court erases recent environmental victory
Michigan Messenger — Authority 666
— involved Merit Energy’s DEQ-permitted plan to move contaminated water into a different watershed by pipeline and discharge it […] . Diversions of our watershed that diminish flow and level can’t be done.” “We are back to where we were before the decision
Search results for watershed on Delicious
Best of the Web Directory Search Results for watershed
Best of the Web Directory Search Results for watershed:
Professional organization established to promote proper watershed management. Also presents links to other water resources issues.
http://www.watershed.org/
Details the facilities, activities and events at this arts centre which specialises in film and digital media. What's on, screening times and tickets, media studio, and news.
http://www.watershed.co.uk/
Promotes the preservation, protection and restoration of the watersheds in Umpqua River basin and beyond.
http://www.umpqua-watersheds.org/
Highlights contributory factors in the developmental project of the county’s watershed. Includes discussion on erosion of soil and drainage.
http://watershed.kar.nic.in/
Presents the Chester Creek, Eightmile River, Salmon River, and Connecticut River case studies. Also offers expert helps for setting up a watershed project.
http://nemo.uconn.edu/successes/watersheds.html
Blogs and Websites Search - OnToplist.com
Blogs and Websites Search - OnToplist.com:
1.
The Watershed Chronicle
http://watershedchronicle.wordpress.com/
Life and Times at the Head of the Chesapeake Bay
2.
The South Florida Watershed Journal
http://sfwj.blogspot.com/
Covering south Florida's water cycle and interconnected watersheds, written by a National Parks Service hydrologist.
3.
Hillslope and Watershed Hydrology Lab
http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fe/watershd/
Focuses on conducting watershed intercomparison and explores the common features of watershed response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)