someoneyouknow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
- Posts
- 28,274
In 2014, after three years of peer-reviewed study, the Obama administration's EPA invoked a rarely used provision of the Clean Water Act to try to protect Bristol Bay after finding that a mine "would result in complete loss of fish habitat due to elimination, dewatering, and fragmentation of streams, wetlands, and other aquatic resources" in some areas of the bay.
"All of these losses would be irreversible," the agency said.
The area is regarded as one of the world's most important salmon fisheries, producing nearly half of the world's annual sockeye salmon catch. Its ecological resources also support 4,000-year-old indigenous cultures, as well as about 14,000 full- and part-time jobs, according to the EPA's 2014 report.
For his part, on May 1st, EPA head Scott Pruitt met with the CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, Tim Collier, the company who wants to pollute the salmon grounds with a mine. At the same time Pruitt was meeting with Collier, Pebble was suing the government for its determination to not allow the proposal to go through.
Even more perplexing, ten days later, on May 11, Pebble and the government settled the lawsuit.
Hours after the meeting, Pruitt directed his staff to withdraw a plan to protect the watershed of Bristol Bay, Alaska. As CEO Collier related to CNN:
In other words, using the rule of law and sound science, the previous determination was not in the best interests of a company and so they bribed the head of a federal agency to do its bidding.
Collier told CNN he will submit permit applications for a mine "footprint" that's about 5 square miles in area. The EPA's 2014 reviews of potential mine operations, however, found that the mine could be much larger, potentially the "largest open pit mine ever constructed in North America." In total, EPA's peer-reviewed analysis of Bristol Bay found, based on Pebble's SEC filings, the mine site could cover an area the size of Manhattan. And the pit could be about 80% as deep as the Grand Canyon.
"This is a project that doesn't present the kind of environmental boogeyman that a lot of the environmental community has been saying it does," Collier said. "As everyone knows, mining companies are very respectful and mindful of their environmental impact."
For his part, Scott Pruitt and the EPA have declined repeated requests for comments on this story, claiming they're too busy with the clean up from hurricane Harvey. This was after condemning a story from the AP, on September 2nd, which said the regulator was nowhere to be found at dangerous, potentially toxic sites submerged by flooding in Houston.
Instead, they said they had used aerial footage to determine the amount and extent of damage to 41 Superfund sites, thus validating what the AP said. That the regulator was not present at the toxic sites.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/pebble-epa-bristol-bay-invs/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/03/us/houston-texas-flood-aftermath/index.html
"All of these losses would be irreversible," the agency said.
The area is regarded as one of the world's most important salmon fisheries, producing nearly half of the world's annual sockeye salmon catch. Its ecological resources also support 4,000-year-old indigenous cultures, as well as about 14,000 full- and part-time jobs, according to the EPA's 2014 report.
For his part, on May 1st, EPA head Scott Pruitt met with the CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, Tim Collier, the company who wants to pollute the salmon grounds with a mine. At the same time Pruitt was meeting with Collier, Pebble was suing the government for its determination to not allow the proposal to go through.
Given that legal process, it's "disturbing" and "extraordinary" that Pruitt would meet with Pebble's CEO under these circumstances, said Gina McCarthy, Pruitt's predecessor as head of the EPA. "It's very unusual when you're in litigation to unilaterally meet with the folks that are suing you," she said in an interview.
Even more perplexing, ten days later, on May 11, Pebble and the government settled the lawsuit.
Hours after the meeting, Pruitt directed his staff to withdraw a plan to protect the watershed of Bristol Bay, Alaska. As CEO Collier related to CNN:
"We requested that [Pruitt] would set this aside. And the moment the election occurred he and his staff took a look and determined to do so."
"This was not a heavy lift," he said. "I mean this is something they ran on. You know, Scott Pruitt, you look at his statements for the last three years, every time he talks about environmental issues, the phrase he uses is 'rule of law.'
"This was not a heavy lift," he said. "I mean this is something they ran on. You know, Scott Pruitt, you look at his statements for the last three years, every time he talks about environmental issues, the phrase he uses is 'rule of law.'
In other words, using the rule of law and sound science, the previous determination was not in the best interests of a company and so they bribed the head of a federal agency to do its bidding.
Collier told CNN he will submit permit applications for a mine "footprint" that's about 5 square miles in area. The EPA's 2014 reviews of potential mine operations, however, found that the mine could be much larger, potentially the "largest open pit mine ever constructed in North America." In total, EPA's peer-reviewed analysis of Bristol Bay found, based on Pebble's SEC filings, the mine site could cover an area the size of Manhattan. And the pit could be about 80% as deep as the Grand Canyon.
"This is a project that doesn't present the kind of environmental boogeyman that a lot of the environmental community has been saying it does," Collier said. "As everyone knows, mining companies are very respectful and mindful of their environmental impact."
For his part, Scott Pruitt and the EPA have declined repeated requests for comments on this story, claiming they're too busy with the clean up from hurricane Harvey. This was after condemning a story from the AP, on September 2nd, which said the regulator was nowhere to be found at dangerous, potentially toxic sites submerged by flooding in Houston.
Instead, they said they had used aerial footage to determine the amount and extent of damage to 41 Superfund sites, thus validating what the AP said. That the regulator was not present at the toxic sites.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/pebble-epa-bristol-bay-invs/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/03/us/houston-texas-flood-aftermath/index.html
