Topic: EPA Dumps One Million Gallons of Wastewater Into Colorado River (Read 3298 times)

Flint Residents Told That Their Children Could Be Taken Away If They Don’t Pay For City’s Poison Water





As the water crisis in Flint deepens, it is becoming apparent that the effects of the lead-infested water are not just a health hazard, but the situation has the potential of ruining many more lives outside of the poison issue. There is no denying that the water in Flint is undrinkable and that it is contaminated with lead and other substances, and it is clear that the government of Flint is responsible for the problem.

However, the city’s government continues to charge people for the poison water and then threatening to foreclose their home or take their children if they refuse to pay. Michigan law states that parents are neglectful if they do not have running water in their home, and if they chose not to pay for water they can’t drink anyway, then they could be guilty of child endangerment. Activists in Flint say that some residents have already received similar threats from the government if they refuse to pay their bills.

Flint residents have recently filed two class action lawsuits calling for all water bills since April of 2014 to be considered null and void because of the fact that the water was poisonous.

“We are seeking for the court to declare that all the bills that have been issued for usage of water invalid because the water has not been fit for its intended purpose,” said Trachelle Young, one of the attorneys bringing the lawsuit, in court.

“Essentially, the residents have been getting billed for water that they cannot use. Because of that, we do not feel that is a fair way to treat the residents,” Young added.

Recent estimates have indicated that it could take up to 15 years and over $60 million to fix the problem, and the residents will be essentially forced to live there until the problem is solved. Despite the fact that the issue is obviously the government’s responsibility, they have made it illegal for people to sell their homes because of the fact that they are known to carry contaminated water. Meanwhile, residents are still left to purchase bottled water on their own, in addition to paying their water bill.

 

Although this problem is finally getting national media attention in Flint, they aren’t the only city with contaminated water supplies. In fact, a recent report published by The Guardian showed that public water supplies across the country were experiencing similar issues.

This crisis highlights the many dangers of allowing the government to maintain a monopoly on the water supply and calls attention to the fact that decentralized solutions to water distribution should be a goal that we start working towards.


http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/01/25/flint-residents-told-that-their-children-could-be-taken-away-if-they-dont-pay-for-citys-poison-water/#more-56285

EPA Knew About Michigan Water Contamination For Months Without Telling Public







The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) top Midwest official knew about the Flint, Michigan drinking water crisis of 2015 months before telling the public, according to a Tuesday report by the The Detroit News.

EPA official Susan Hedman did not publicize the EPA’s concern over Flint’s water quality or the water’s dangerous health concerns. The federal agency instead quietly fought with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for at least six months about what should be done.

EPA water expert, Miguel Del Toral, identified potential contamination problems with Flint’s drinking water last February and confirmed the suspicions in April. He authored an internal memo about the problem in June, according to documents obtained by Virginia Tech.

Meanwhile, Hedman became aware of the contamination issue in April. She sought legal advice, but didn’t receive the guidance until November 2014. The American Civil Liberties Union accused Hedman in October of attempting to keep Miguel Del Toral’s memo in-house, downplaying its significance.


http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/14/epa-knew-about-michigan-water-contamination-for-months-without-telling-the-public/

Why Did the Environmental Protection Agency Spend $1.4 Million on Guns?

[...]
The headline of an op-ed by economist Stephen Moore in Investor’s Business Daily sums it up well: “Why Does the EPA Need Guns, Ammo, and Armor to Protect the Environment?”

And not just a few weapons. Open the Books found that the agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear, and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities.

“We were shocked ourselves to find these kinds of pervasive expenditures at an agency that is supposed to be involved in clean air and clean water,” said Open the Books founder Adam Andrzejewski. “Some of these weapons are for full-scale military operations.”

[...]
Among the EPA’s purchases:

$1.4 million for “guns up to 300mm.”
$380,000 for “ammunition.”
$210,000 for “camouflage and other deceptive equipment.”
$208,000 for “radar and night-vision equipment.”
$31,000 for “armament training devices.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/30/why-did-the-environmental-protection-agency-spend-1-4-million-on-guns/

Next time snap a picture (and make sure to delete the meta data, exif) and share with us.

Just passed a car wash yesterday that had a giant banner advertising relief from "acid rain". Hey EPA and California Air Resources Board, et al: you fucking failed.

They claim to protect the environment but they really just want kickbacks from large corporations that want to pollute. figures

So, are they going to be fined millions of $ and shut down for several months while some government agencies wander aimlessly around their worksites?

EPA spends millions on military-style weapons, watchdog group reports


The Environmental Protection Agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on military-style weapons to arm its 200 “special agents” to fight environmental crime.

Among the weapons purchased are guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities, according to a new report by the watchdog group Open the Books.

“Protecting the environment just got real. With millions of dollars spent on military style weaponry, the EPA is now literally ensconced with all institutional force,” said Adam Andrzejewski, founder of Open the Books and the author of the report.

“Our report discovered that when the EPA comes knocking they are armed with a thousand lawyers, arrest/criminal data, credit, business and property histories, plus a ‘Special Agent’ with the latest in weaponry and technology,” Mr. Andrzejewski added.

The agency spends nearly $75 million each year for criminal enforcement, including money for a small militia of 200 “special agents” charged with fighting environmental crime.

Congress granted police powers to the EPA in 1988, during the Reagan administration.

The special agent “enforces the nation’s laws by investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses and providing legal guidance to assist in the prosecution of criminal conduct that threatens people’s health and the environment,” according to the EPA’s website.

The EPA estimates that each Special Agent costs taxpayers $216,000 per year in salary, travel, equipment, training and other expenses, according to the report.

The EPA’s military weapons spending is just one example of the agency’s questionable purchases highlighted in the 40-page report.

Open the Books, a nonpartisan and nonprofit group based in Illinois, scanned tens of thousands of the agency’s spending contracts totaling more than $93 billion from 2000 to 2014.

Among the findings were hundreds of millions of dollars on high-end office furnishings, sports equipment and “environmental justice” grants to raise awareness of global warming.

The report also reveals that seven of 10 EPA employees make more than $100,000 a year and more than 12,000 of its 16,000 employees were given bonuses last year despite budget cuts.

The EPA also employs more than 1,000 attorneys, making it one of the largest law firms in the country.

The agency also sent over $50 million since 2000 to international organizations, including groups in Mexico and China.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/10/epa-spends-millions-on-military-style-weapons-repo/

So i wonder if they plan on issuing themselves a fine?  As they fine anyone else that may have an accident like this.  wonder if they will take a pay cut for a month or something.   l dought it.

EPA Considers Water Treatment Facility At Gold King Mine After Animas River Spill…


The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a temporary water-treatment plant after the Gold King Mine spill.

Documents released this week highlight a bidding process that began a little over two weeks after last month’s spill. The request is for a subcontractor to begin work in anticipation of a treatment facility. Water would be piped from the Gold King Mine near Silverton to Red and Bonita Mine and the “future site” of a water-treatment plant in Gladstone.

The EPA tasked Environmental Restoration, LLC with the Request for Proposal. The contractor was performing reclamation with the EPA on Aug. 5 when an excavation error by the team at Gold King caused an estimated 3 million gallons of orange mining sludge to pour into the Animas River. Initial tests showed spikes in heavy metals.

Experts agree that the best solution is a treatment facility, though such a plant would be costly. The EPA offered no cost estimates for such a facility, nor would it say where the funding would come from. A reclamation expert with the Colorado School of Mines told The Durango Herald a temporary treatment plant would cost around $3 million.

Gold King continues to leak about 550 gallons of wastewater per minute.

“The issuance of a work order doesn’t mean that there has been a final decision to build a wastewater treatment plant. Agency staff initiated the RFP process immediately after the spill so that the procurement process would be well underway if that decision were to be made,” said EPA spokeswoman Christie St. Clair.

The contractor is currently evaluating six proposals for construction. The bidding process is open until Aug. 28. The system would need to be operational within 21 days of a subcontractor being awarded the contract.

“The agency is conducting an analysis to determine if a temporary treatment plant provides a measurable benefit to water quality downstream in the Animas River,” St. Clair said. “The agency is closely coordinating with officials in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Southern Ute tribe, Mountain Ute tribe and Navajo Nation to develop a comprehensive, long-term plan for the Gold King Mine site.”

Building a plant would be difficult, given that the terrain is mountainous, rocky and steep.

“The system must be able to be operated all year at elevations between 11,400 feet and 10,500 feet. Extreme cold and heavy snow are to be expected and planned for. The system must be self-contained as there are no amenities on site,” the RFP says.


http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150917/NEWS01/150919643/article/20150917/NEWS01/150919643/Treatment-plant-considered-for-Gold-King-


-------------------------------------------
Was this an accident?

Video: Navajo Nation: Environmental Protection Agency DOOMED!

"McCarthy from the EPA was grilled by House Oversite Committee and a blogger was referred to as being unstable and an agitator who do you think that was? lol
EPA EDITED& PROFESSOR DOOM VINDICATED!"

I keep saying this. I can't believe them, they are such hypocrites going after people (especially when the water is cleaner when it leaves him!) when they can't take care of waters, and it actually looks like they messed up the river on purpose for money. But I can believe it really, because everything I've been researching leads me to believe it's on purpose and this case will probably be decided in the EPAs favor, because everyone with money behind them wins.

EPA hits farmer with $16M in fines for building stock pond





It was just this weekend when we saw the EPA moving head with sweeping regulations which redefine the meaning of the Clean Water Act, seeking to extend their control over every pool of water in the country, despite the fact that a federal judge had put enforcement of the regulations on hold in 13 states. Today we’ll take a brief look at a case which has been percolating for quite a while and demonstrates the way that the agency can impact the lives of farmers and rural landowners. Andy Johnson, a farmer from Fort Bridger, Wyoming, made the bold move in 2012 of building a small earthen dam across a creek which runs through his property to create a stock pond for his horses and cattle. We’re not talking about a hydroelectric dam on a river here.. this is a stream that you can walk across without getting the tops of your socks wet for most of the year.

How this attracted the attention of the EPA isn’t exactly clear, but they came down on Andy like a ton of bricks, hitting him with fines which now total more than $16M.

Even though the Clean Water Act exempts stock ponds, and Mr. Johnson had obtained the necessary state permits, the EPA ordered him in January 2014 to restore the area to its original condition or accumulate fines of $37,500 a day. Instead, Mr. Johnson hired a lawyer.

“The EPA is out to expand its power, and I’m a test case,” said Mr. Johnson in a statement. “We’re going to fight them all the way.”

Last week, his attorneys — including the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Budd-Falen law firm in Cheyenne — filed a lawsuit against the agency to stop it from enforcing the compliance order.

Because the creek feeds into the Green River the EPA seems to feel that they hold jurisdiction over it, though calling that stream “navigable waters” would require expanding the definition of “boats” to include “galoshes.” Also, the “dam” in question was composed of sand, gravel, clay and concrete blocks, which the agency decided met the criteria for “pollutants.” (Aside from the cinder blocks, those materials are also locally known as “the ground.”) Amazingly, Johnson had filed for and been granted the appropriate local and state permits to have a stock pond, and stock ponds are specifically excluded from the traditional wording of the Clean Water Act. No matter… the agency felt that action was required to save the world and they were going to leap to the rescue.

The truly ironic part is that Johnson had the water in the creek tested above and below his pond and the results indicated that the downstream water was actually cleaner than when it came in because the pond allowed sediment to settle out.

Let’s remember that the EPA was doing all of this long before they submitted their new guidelines which will allow them to regulate the water in your dog’s drinking dish. With these new rules they’re just looking to codify their ability to continue the meddling they’ve already been engaged in. Keep that in mind as this battle moves forward because Mr. Johnson’s property is all of eight acres in size. His pond wouldn’t support a self respecting brook trout. And the EPA wants to fine him $16M dollars. Something has to be done to bring this agency in check.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/31/epa-hits-farmer-with-16m-in-fines-for-building-stock-pond/

This is just unbelievable but not really. Even the place put up to protect our freedoms are taking away freedoms. Protesters have no free-speech rights on Supreme Court’s front porch

Do I trust the EPA to not go along with this in the place it's not to go along with this? Not really. Only if they are literally forced. I know people in the Social Security lie to people about their benefits. You can't really trust anything in the US anymore. The protection agency is poisoning our water and sending oily fracking water to the Navajo people. Who's really proud to be an American anymore? We can't really do anything about it though.

EPA says new clean water rules are in effect even though judge suspended them


The very same crew which recently dumped three million gallons of toxic sludge out of an abandoned mine and turned the Animas River in Colorado the color of a yellow banded poison dart frog for roughly a week has just issued a whole new set of rules to “protect” small pools of water. They would also like you to know that these rules are going into effect even though a federal judge put them on hold in 13 states, too. This new batch of regulations is going to “protect” bodies of water which may include the ditch in front of your driveway or that persistent soggy patch in your back yard. (Fox News)

The Environmental Protection Agency says it is going forward with a new federal rule to protect small streams, tributaries and wetlands, despite a court ruling that blocked the measure in 13 central and Western states.

The EPA says the rule, which took effect Friday in more than three dozen states, will safeguard drinking water for millions of Americans.

Opponents pledged to continue to fight the rule, emboldened by a federal court decision Thursday that blocked it from Alaska to Arkansas.


These rules were not suddenly rushed out in response to the agency’s own recent hijinks in an effort to make sure nobody else pulls such a boneheaded maneuver. They’ve been in the works for quite a while and a coalition of people ranging from farmers to landowners to states’ rights advocates have been howling about them. Though they are supposedly in place to prevent pollution in smaller tributary streams which feed into larger waterways, the rules are so broadly written that they could apply to virtually anyplace where water pools on the surface of the earth, leading to a permitting nightmare for the landowner if they want to do so much as landscape the area for drainage. The rules have been viewed as being so odius that the Farm Bureau started a massive push to trim them back down in scope. And finally a federal judge hearing the case for plaintiffs in 13 states agreed to put them on hold. (Greeley Tribune)

The federal ruling Thursday was in North Dakota, where officials from that state and 12 others argued the new guidelines are overly broad and infringe on their sovereignty. U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson in Fargo agreed that they might have a case, issuing a temporary injunction.

The EPA said after the ruling that it would not implement the new rules in those 13 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Several other lawsuits remain, from other states and also from farm and business groups.

You might think that having a judge shut the process down in more than one quarter of the country might give the agency pause. But apparently not… it’s full steam ahead in all of the states where they weren’t expressly forbidden to move forward. But how does that work in legal terms? Aren’t they a federal agency which is supposed to be making rules for the entire nation? If their regulations are shut down in part of the country, how can they be enforced in the rest?

Don’t worry yourselves. I’m sure the Justice Department will weigh in on this any minute now and reassure us that the EPA can do whatever it wants. Now if you’ll excuse them, they have a few more miles of river to dredge up and a bunch of mercury to hide back in a mine shaft.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/29/epa-says-new-clean-water-rules-are-in-effect-even-though-judge-suspended-them/

Of course when they poison the water, some of that will go into the air and contaminate their rain too, right?

The rain got contaminated in China recently.

Sounds like this is all part of the conspiracy to privatize fresh water sources.

---

The following is from: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/06/20/the-un-is-conquering-america-through-the-control-of-all-water/

"There is a second front which is being used to create an artificial water shortage in the United States. Perrier, a subsidiary of the multi-national Nestle corporation, has invested heavily in Michigan and the Great Lakes. Locked behind two sets of chain link fence, huge siphoning pumps are deliberately hidden from view in the forest. They are pumping the Great Lakes dry and shipping the water overseas. Much of the Great Lakes water is headed for China, filled in massive cargo bags which are pulled across the ocean by a large supertanker."

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/24/it-is-actually-illegal-in-colorado-to-collect-the-rain-that-falls-on-your-home/

"Do you live in Colorado? Does it rain on your house? Do the drops patter off the roof, compose romantic puddles on your porch?

Guess what: That water isn’t yours. You can’t have it. And you most certainly cannot set out a tank to catch what falls from the sky, you thief."

---

8/21/2015 — EPA delivers Toxic Oil / Fracking water tanks to Navajo Indians for PUBLIC USE

"Being that the EPA was responsible for the release of the toxic water, they are responsible for getting fresh water to the people cut off further down the river.

The American Indian Navajo Nation trusted the EPA / US Government would do the right thing — that the culprits of the spill would be held responsible, and they would bring in fresh water for public use while the whole mess is cleaned up.....

The Navajo Nation received ‘water’ for public use as was promised.

Unfortunately, the water was delivered in USED OIL WELL / FRACKING WASTEWATER TANKS!

Search “Gunbarrel Oil separator tanks” to see many examples.

The “water” sent to the Indian nation for crop, and animal use was literally sent in unwashed oil tanks — still filled partially with petroleum, and toxic chemicals. (This toxic “water” is not even safe to the touch for humans , animals, or plants / crops)".....

Documents: EPA knew before spill that gold mine was at risk of toxic water 'blowout'



U.S. officials knew of the potential for a catastrophic "blowout" of poisonous wastewater from an inactive gold mine, yet appeared to have only a cursory plan to deal with such an event when a government cleanup team triggered a 3-million-gallon spill, according to internal documents released by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA released the documents late Friday following weeks of prodding from The Associated Press and other media organizations. While shedding some light on the circumstances surrounding the accident, the newly disclosed information also raises more questions about whether enough was done to prevent it.

The Aug. 5 spill came as workers excavated the entrance to the idled Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, unleashing a torrent of toxic water that fouled rivers in three states.

A June 2014 work order for a planned cleanup noted the mine had not been accessible since 1995, when the entrance partially collapsed.

"This condition has likely caused impounding of water behind the collapse," the report said. "Conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine."

A May 2015 action plan produced by an EPA contractor, Environmental Restoration LLC, also noted the potential for a blowout. It was not clear what additional precautions were taken to prepare for such a release.

Much of the documents were redacted. Among the items blacked out was a line specifying whether workers were required to have phones that could work at the remote site, at an elevation of 11,000 feet.

A 71-page safety plan for the site included only a few lines describing what to do if there was a spill: Locate the source and stop the flow, begin containment and recovery of the spilled materials, and alert downstream drinking water systems as needed.

EPA spokesman David Gray said Saturday that the work order outlined steps that should have been followed, but he did not directly address whether those steps were followed, citing ongoing investigations into the accident.

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman said after reviewing the documents that she remained frustrated with the EPA's lack of answers.

"The plan indicates there was an understanding of what might happen and what the potential consequences were. We don't know whether they followed the plan," Coffman told The Associated Press. "I want to give the EPA the benefit of the doubt here. I really want to do that. It's getting harder."

The wastewater flowed into a tributary of the Animas and San Juan rivers, turning them a sickly yellow-orange color and tainting them with lead, arsenic, thallium and other heavy metals that can cause health problems and harm aquatic life. The toxic plume traveled roughly 300 miles through Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, to Lake Powell on the Arizona-Utah border.

EPA water testing has shown contamination levels returning to pre-spill levels, though experts warn some of the contaminants likely sunk and mixed with bottom sediments and could someday be stirred back up.

The documents released at about 10:30 p.m. EDT Friday did not account for what happened immediately before or after the spill.

Elected officials have been critical of the EPA's response. Among the unanswered questions is why it took the agency nearly a day to inform downstream communities that rely on the rivers for drinking water.

Coffman criticized the "late Friday night document dump" and said the redaction of key facts would heighten public suspicions. She also indicated that it undercut EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's statements accepting responsibility.

EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said the agency has been inundated with media inquiries and worked diligently to respond to them. All information must go through a legal review, she added.



http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/08/22/epa-knew-of-blow-out-risk-for-tainted-water-at-gold-mine

Who is going to fine the EPA? If this was any other company the EPA would fine them to the point that they are out of business. The EPA should do the same to themselves . Oh wait they won't do that.