US EPA sued!

[natureguy]

US EPA seems to be into huge problem after being sued by 5 environmental groups.

The Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida and the St. Johns Riverkeeper sued EPA as the federal government is voilating the Clean Water Act by not setting standards for Farm & Urban Runoff which is polluting Florida's waterways.

The water runoff from farm and urban areas gets fertilized due to which over the time large blooms of algae comes into existence.

Runoff often gather in some waterbody and hence the aglae starts contanimating the waterbody. When this algae die, its decay suck lot of oxygen from water due to which other living organisms in the water also die. Moreover runoff can also contaminate drinking water supplies and sicken or kill people.

The EPA had noted in 1998 that "nutrient pollution is the leading cause of impairment in lakes and coastal waterways," according to the lawsuit. At the time, the agency also said the nutrients in runoff had been linked to so-called "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico and outbreaks of Pfiesteria, a microscopic organism that lives in estuaries and could harm humans and fish.

It may be noted here that Chesapeake Bay, has been suffering for years from toxic algae blooms caused by water pollution and runoff. At times, large swaths of the bay contain so little oxygen that little life remains.

Florida's Department of Environmental Protection is still working to set guidelines, which are complex because the agency hasn't determined exactly how much runoff can continue without harming ecosystems.

[Karl]

While the US EPA and similar agencies in other countries have overall responsibility for environmental quality, is the solution to their inefficiency (or varying degrees of staff incompetence) to sue the agency?

No such agency exists or operates in isolation; there are always other factors in cases like these, such as improper political influences in relation to decision-making (http://www.sustainabilityforum.com/f...erference.html)

Overall, a better approach may be to tackle the problem at its source, rather than increase pressure (and therefore bureaucratic obstacles) of the agency. But then again, there would be no "cash incentive awarded by the courts" to motivate any environmental group to try a more meaningful approach.

The institutional efficiency, effectiveness or decision-making integrity of the US EPA is not an issue that affects me personally, but on the other hand, much of their data publications and factsheets are very useful and convenient sources of information that can be used anywhere in the world (with due consideration to relevance, utility, etc). So it would be unfair to suggest that the US EPA does nothing of value...

[natureguy]

I am not suggesting that EPA doesn't do anything valuable.

But then its a simple fact that since years gulf of mexico turns into dead zone during this season. Moreover EPA has themselves made research into the matter.

Now what good is a research if they can't act on the outcome of it. If after a research of king cobra you come to know that its deadly snake and shall kill you if you leave it, you have to kill it, you just can't turn around and start looking for something more interesting.

Above all blaming about interference from political leaders is an old game.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by natureguy

I am not suggesting that EPA doesn't do anything valuable.

No, I did not mean you were suggesting that - it was more about the attitude of some of the "environmental groups". To some extent, they seem to take for granted, the existence of such agencies as the EPA. Despite all the faults and shortcomings of entities such as the EPA, having them for the past 35+ years is better than nothing.

Regardless of what these agencies are authorised to do in principle, their realistic function (in all countries, not just the US), often amounts to little more than an advisory capacity - they can do all this research and publish information and guidelines, but at the end of the day, they cannot force anybody to do the right thing, and where and when they attempt to use their authority to rigidly enforce regulations, they are likely to be accussed of using "dictatorial tactics reminiscent of a police state" against the farmers.

If the scientists/technocrats do not have the will or ability to set the relevant standards for agricultural pollution in a timely manner - it would make more sense for the "environmental groups" to lobby the farmers' organisations and even the individuals themselves. It is not as though the agriculturalists are not usually environmentally conscious people.

The point about the EPA is that the data they have collected on the Gulf of Mexico (where publicly available) can be used by the groups to assist in lobbying the farmers using "moral suasion", to at least try to meaningfully transmit the message that pollution prevention practices are not meant to penalize them (for the sake of some birds and butterflies), but that the cumulative effects of unsustainable agricultural practices is (or appears to be) much more widespread than is apparent.

However, there is too much of a tendency for these environmental groups to use a combination of "treehugger" tactics mixed with continuous litigation aimed at the "paper" agencies such as the EPA. That does not seem to be an effective means of achieving tangible results, but (coincidentally?) is very good for giving the groups (and their key individuals) media publicity.

But in any case passing laws, regulations and effluent standards will not make the pollution disappear. That is an important part of the solution, but there is much more.

In terms of the political aspects, the US EPA probably has much more power vested in it, than similar agencies in many other countries, but the higher degree of authority in practice makes them more vulnerable to the forces of corruption.

[natureguy]

Quite right karl.

[Karl]

(This news about the US EPA is a bit more positive…)

EPA Fines SuperFuels $55,000 for Underground Storage Tank Violations

Environmental Protection – July 18, 2008

EPA and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix recently fined the former owners and operators of four underground storage tanks at the former SuperFuels gasoline service station in Tuba City, Ariz., for federal underground storage tank violations. Alleged former owner/operators John B. Knight, Jr., National Petroleum Marketing Inc., Sunwest Express Inc. and Navajo Trails Inc., and alleged former operator Robert D. Brown operated four underground storage tanks containing diesel and unleaded gasoline at a station located at the intersection of Highways 160 and 264 in Tuba City on the Navajo Nation, adjacent to the Hopi Tribe.

"It's essential that service state operators monitor their tanks for leaks and act quickly upon any release," said Jeff Scott, Director of Waste Programs for EPA's Pacific Southwest Region. "EPA's action sends a message that station operators need to take their responsibilities seriously." The complaint alleged that, at various times, the owners and/or operators:

• failed to report a suspected release within 24 hours;
• failed to conduct corrosion tests every three years;
• failed to monitor tanks every 30 days;
• failed to use valid release detection methods;
• failed to provide adequate release detection for piping;
• failed to maintain financial responsibility; and
• failed to respond to information request letters.

In the past, more than 13,000 gallons of gasoline leaked into the soil and groundwater from old underground storage tanks at the facility and from another gasoline service station on the northern corner of the same intersection. The old leaking tanks were removed and replaced with new tanks, and cleanup systems were installed to address the soil and groundwater.

Source: EPA Fines SuperFuels $55,000 for Underground Storage Tank Violations | Environmental Protection

[natureguy]

Originally Posted by Karl

(This news about the US EPA is a bit more positive…)

..........