Origins of the Flint water crisis

The Wikipedia page (and similar timelines) for the Flint water crisis indicates that the problem "started in April 2014" when the city's emergency manager sought to "save about $5 million over less than two years" by "switch[ing] from purchasing treated Lake Huron water from Detroit, as it had done for 50 years, to treating water from the Flint River..." until the [under-construction]  Karegnondi system was completed in 2016.

Similarly, Professor Robert Percival explains that "[t]he Flint tragedy originated with the appointment by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder of Darnell Earley as emergency manager for Flint. To save money Earley decided in April 2014 to shift the source of the city's water supply to the polluted Flint River."

These are both true and accurate statements. But they leave the reader wondering: why did Flint (and Detroit) have an appointed emergency manager in the first place? Because those cities were run into the ground. They were essentially bankrupt. And under the provisions of Michigan law, the governor appointed emergency managers to help those cities clean up their mess. Flint continued to flounder, electing two convicted felons (including one for murder) and two others with bankruptcies to its city council in 2013.

One can argue over the scope of powers given to appointed emergency managers (and the subsequent authority stripped from those local governments in receivership), but there is not any suggestion (at least not that I am aware of) that these emergency managers did anything outside the scope of their mandate. Perhaps the Michigan law needs to be amended so that emergency managers cannot change "policy simply to save costs without considering the impact on public health." But that doesn't address the underlying issue of crime-ridden, debt-laden, corrupt cities that will give birth to more tragedies like the Flint water crisis. This New York Times article about the "anger" over appointed emergency managers likewise fails to even address why such managers were appointed in the first place.

There is plenty of blame to go around here in regards to this individual incident: the city's emergency managers, including Earley, as well as Governor Snyder and Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and quite possibly the EPA. In a larger sense, the deeper blame for Flint's water crisis (and many of the ongoing problems in decaying urban cities) lies elsewhere: corrupt politicians, cronyism, disintegrating schools, and public-sector unions. The root cause for cities like Flint and Detroit is a failure of one-party government.

Law in Plain English: Greenhouse Gases Cases

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (consolidated with American Chemistry Council v. EPA; Energy-Intensive Manufacturers v. EPA; Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA; Texas v. EPA; Chamber of Commerce v. EPA)

Argument: Feb 24 2013 (Aud.)

Background: Following the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)—which clarified that greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA)—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a series of greenhouse gas-related rules. Among them was the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light trucks. Under the EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA, the Tailpipe Rule automatically triggered regulation of stationary greenhouse gas emitters. In other words, the EPA argued that once the Tailpipe Rule set motor-vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases, the greenhouse gases became a regulated pollutant under the Act  and thus subject to regulation by stationary emitters. Various states and industry groups challenged these rules, arguing that they are based on improper constructions of the CAA and are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. The DC Circuit dismissed and denied all petitions.

Issue: The question before the Court is whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the Act neither compels nor permits EPA to adopt an interpretation of the Act requiring a source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emissions. EPA reasonably interpreted the Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with BACT for greenhouse gases.

Law in Plain English: Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation; American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation; consolidated with American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation

Argument: Dec 10 2013 (Aud.)

Discussion: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Government sets air quality standards, but States retain the primary responsibility for choosing how to attain those standards within their borders. The CAA contains a "good neighbor" provision which requires upwind States to bear responsibility for their fair share of pollution caused in down-wind States. To implement the statutory good neighbor requirement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Transport Rule (or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, CSAPR), which defines emissions reduction responsibilities for 28 upwind States based on those States' contributions to downwind States' air quality problems. An array of power companies, coal companies, labor unions, trade associations, States, and local governments petitioned for review of EPA's Transport Rule. The D.C. Circuit ruled that States, not the Federal Government, are the primary implementers after EPA has set the upwind States' good neighbor obligations. As a result, the court found that the EPA had exceeded its statutory authority and vacated the rule. In appealing the ruling of the D.C. Circuit, the EPA argued both that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and erred on the merits.

Issue: The questions before the Court are (1) whether the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenges to the Clean Air Act on which it granted relief; (2) whether states are excused from adopting state implementation plans prohibiting emissions that “contribute significantly” to air pollution problems in other states until after the EPA has adopted a rule quantifying each state’s inter-state pollution obligations; and (3) whether the EPA permissibly interpreted the statutory term “contribute significantly” so as to define each upwind state’s “significant” interstate air pollution contributions in light of the cost-effective emission reductions it can make to improve air quality in polluted downwind areas, or whether the Act instead unambiguously requires the EPA to consider only each upwind state’s physically proportionate responsibility for each downwind air quality problem.

Holding: In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the D.C. Circuit and ruled that the CAA does not command that States by given a second opportunity to file a State Implementation Plan (SIP) after EPA has quantified the State's interstate pollution obligations. The EPA's cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision.

Controversial Court Decisions: Raleigh Avenue Beach Assn. v. Atlantis Beach Club

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: Raleigh Avenue Beach Assn. v. Atlantis Beach Club, 185 N.J. 40 (2005).

Map note: The property in question is the dry beach area listed below as the "Atlantis Beach Club Property." To its south is property of the United States Coast Guard which is closed most of the summer. To its north is Seapointe Village's Beach, which is open to the public.

Facts: Tony Labrosciano, a member of the Raleigh Avenue Beach Association, was issued a summons for trespassing when he attempted to leave the wet sand area and walk across the private property of the Atlantis Beach Club to the eastern terminus of Raleigh Avenue in Cape May, New Jersey. The Association, which consists of individuals who reside on Raleigh Avenue in the Diamond Beach neighborhood, filed a complaint against Atlantis, and claimed that Atlantis was in violation of the public trust doctrine and sought free public access through the Atlantis property to the beach, and to a sufficient amount of dry sand above the mean high water line to permit the public to enjoy the beach and beach-related activities. The public trust doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain them for the public's reasonable use. The doctrine was born in Roman times, when Justinian ruled that seashores were open to the public, so that fishermen could dry their nets.

Trial Court: The trial court held that the public was entitled to a right of horizontal access to the ocean by means of “a three-foot wide strip of dry sand, immediately landward of the mean high water line and extending from the northern to the southern boundaries of [the Atlantis] [p]roperty, which may be utilized by the public, at no charge, for the purpose of entering into and exiting from” the area located below the mean high water line. The trial court also held that the public was entitled to limited vertical access to the ocean, consisting of a path from the bulkhead through the dunes on the property. The trial court also ruled that the Public Trust Doctrine does not apply to permit the Department [of Environmental Protection] to regulate the use of the Beach Area. (emphasis added)”

Appellate Court: The Appellate Division of the Superior Court, and then the Supreme Court of New Jersey, ruled that Atlantis could not limit vertical or horizontal public access to its dry sand beach area nor interfere with the public's right to free use of the dry sand for intermittent recreational purposes connected with the ocean and wet sand. Atlantis could charge reasonable fees to access the beach, but was required to pick up trash, provide shower facilities, and provide lifeguard service. 

Why It's Controversial: The public trust doctrine was born in Roman times from the need to protect the livelihood of fishermen. In New Jersey, the courts recognized that the public trust doctrine focused on the preservation of the “natural water resources” of New Jersey “for navigation and commerce and fishing, an important source of food.” In an earlier case, New Jersey extended this doctrine to recreational uses, without any legal justification. And even in New Jersey, the public trust doctrine had never extended to purely private property as was the case with the Atlantic Beach Club. Doubling down on an expansive use of the public trust doctrine ("The public trust doctrine...should not be considered fixed or static, but should be molded and extended to meet changing conditions and needs of the public it was created to benefit.was created to benefit"), the New Jersey Supreme Court decimated the private property rights of the Atlantic Beach Club, despite the fact that Seapointe Village's Beach was open to the public just a few hundred feet to the north (see map above).

Law in Plain English: Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center

The Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) challenged a determination of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  that that stormwater runoff on logging roads was not a "point source." As a result, timber companies did not require Clean Water Act (CWA) permits. NEDC's goal was to force timber companies toget permits as a means of trying to reduce the silty runoff into forest streams.  The question before the Court was whether the CWA requires permits before stormwater runoff from logging roads can be discharged into other navigable waters; and in doing so, deciding whether the EPA's interpretation was reasonable (agencies are permitted to reasonably interpret their own regulations, and are given deference in doing so, per the Court's previous decision in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997)). In a 7-1 decision (Justice Breyer recused himself because his brother was one of the judges who heard the case at the Court of Appeals), the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA's determination that no permits were required was a reasonable interpretation. As a result, timber companies will not be required to obtain permits for such stormwater runoff. The practical impact of this decision is that groups such as the NEDC will have to find other means to address their environmental concerns with logging.

Ferguson Township Community Bill of Rights is a Bill of Disaster

In September, I blogged briefly about a proposed "community bill of rights" on the ballot in Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania. I didn't spend much time on it because 1) from a constitutional perspective, it was a complete disaster; and 2) frankly, I didn't think it would pass.

The township considered an injunction to allow the measure's constitutionality to be tested in court before appearing on the ballot, but decided to allow the vote first.

Anyways, I should mention that it did pass: 4,272-3,896.

The cruel irony of this "bill of rights" is that many of the provisions are extremely hostile to individual rights, especially property rights. Additionally, other provisions assert power that the township has no authority to assert in the first place. All in all, a disaster of epic proportions.

I would be surprised if any significant portion of this "bill of rights" goes into effect. If it does, the slippery slope will have gotten a lot steeper.

Ferguson Township Community Bill of Rights

Ferguson Township is a mostly rural township in Centre County, Pennsylvania, just west of State College. This fall, the citizens of Ferguson Township gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the November ballot to amend the township's home rule charter to create a Community Bill of Rights.

Here's the text. There are so many problems with this thing I stopped counting.
Ferguson Township Petition for Community Bill of Rights

New York Times hypocrisy on Climategate emails vs. Wikileaks cables

The New York Times on last year's Climategate emails:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

Take note of that link: just two days ago (November 29, 2010) the author (Andrew Revkin) made an update to his post of over a a year ago (November 20, 2009) trying to explain what he meant, in hindsight. Clearly, the Times is sensitive to the issue of their own hypocrisy.

The New York Times on the illegally acquired Wikileaks cables, which clearly "contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye:"

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

The message goes on to say that they will actually publish some of the cables, too.  So yes, there you have it, hypocrisy at it's best.  The New York Times has not been relevant for years, so I guess we should have come to expect this by now.

U.S. corn ethanol was not a good policy

According to Reuters:

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was 'not a good policy', weeks before tax credits are up for renewal.

U.S. blending tax breaks for ethanol make it profitable for refiners to use the fuel even when it is more expensive than gasoline. The credits are up for renewal on Dec. 31.

Total U.S. ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year according to the International Energy Industry, which said biofuels worldwide received more subsidies than any other form of renewable energy.

'It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,' said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

'First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

'It's hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.'

Why this change of heart?

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

Wow. I must admit, this is unusual honesty from any politician, even Al Gore.  Everyone presumes politicians make decisions based upon political calculations, but to hear this from Mr. Nobel-Gore is astounding.

Is feel-good environmentalism bad for the environment?

An interesting exchange from a few months back between some colleagues and me on Yammer; identifying information removed (other than mine!). My comments are :

Colleague 1 (C1): ...when you do move, get new business cards. as part of...sustainability, have you thought about using only digital business cards?

Me in reply to C1: Is this really a realistic suggestion? "No I don't have a business card, but I sure do have a digital one!"

Colleague 2 (C2) in reply to C1: You mean just give out a URL?

C1 in reply to C2: no, provide your current...office number and when you do move, get new cards when you get to another location. Or option 2 is provide only digital cards, I give out my information via email. it takes some planning to have my blackberry ready but saves on the environment. I just wish more people used a standard "beaming" technology for digital business cards.

Me in reply to C1: What exactly is environmentally friendly about making more Blackberries?

C2 in reply to C1: So when somebody Hands you a business card, you send them your info via email on the spot?

C1 in reply to Me: lol, not making more blackberries but using them to send digital cards

Me in reply to C1: I think you're missing the point; your method still requires Blackberries to be made and manufactured. I suspect the environmental impact of producing even just one Blackberry is more than a box of business cards.

C1 in reply to C2: not on the spot but when i get a chance later on

That was the end of the thread; he replied to C2 but not to me. In all honesty I couldn't find anything reliable on the environmental impact or so-called "carbon footprint" to make/manufacture/use a Blackberry or similar device; but we are told of the toxic metals associated with such electronic devices, and likewise the cautions associated with disposing them, so I feel safe making the claim I did. Again, my suggestion was partly tongue in cheek, but also half serious because he is thinking "business card vs. no business card" when I want him to think "Blackberry vs. business card".

In this case, is his feel-good environmentalism actually bad for the environment? His argument assumes that the Blackberry already exists so he's not even considering its impact on the environment; my argument is that if more people decide to use Blackberries (and more Blackberries are made for those users), then that environmental impact is probably greater than those people deciding to forgo the use of paper business cards. I know it's not cut and dry as that, but I think you can understand my point.

Are electric mowers more friendly for the environment?

I keep hearing on the radio that electric mowers are so much better than gas-powered mowers. And I'm not talking about performance--these commercials are speaking directly to environmental impact.

While agreeing that it is entirely plausible that electric mowers are more environmentally friendly than gas-powered mowers, I wanted to look a bit deeper to see some of the data behind these claims.

Unfortunately, the data doesn't appear to readily exist on both sides. While there are a number of studies that attempt to show the emissions from using a gas-powered mower, nothing of the like appears to exist for their electric counterparts. Now, I know what you're saying--electric mowers don't have emissions. Directly, of course, they don't. But where does that electricity come from? Whether you're using a corded or cordless electric mower, the power is coming from somewhere.

Incredibly, some of the content I found didn't even acknowledge this:

• "Electric lawnmowers produce no air pollution..."
• eco-gardening.com offers an electric mower with "No pollution!"
• The Neuton CE5 Battery-Powered Mower amazingly "produces no pollution"!

Out of sight, out of mind?! I guess these electric and battery-powered movers work on ambient static electricity; but if they require being plugged in to be used and/or charged, they're creating some pollution. So the next question is: how much?

This isn't easily answered, since power sources are different depending upon where you live. So the better question is--where does your power come from? According to Consumer Reports, “[a]chieving a net environmental savings from switching to electric mowers depends on the efficiency of the power plant”. Precisely. Nearly 70% of electric power in the United States is generated by fossil fuels, so chances are your electric mower is helping to pump out some pollution. Your backyard might be emissionless, but your power plant certainly isn't, and you're probably contributing to it. More Nimbyism, eh?

So what is the comparison? Honestly, I don't know. You'd have to figure out the power required to operate your electric mower and then figure out what the associated emissions at your power plant are to generate that power. Again, it is entirely plausible that electric mowers are more environmentally friendly than gas-powered mowers, but without that specific data, you're just guessing.

Of course, the same argument could be made for electric cars. And that doesn't even include the dirty mining of nickel for electric car batteries, but that's for another day...

Lighting a pure hydrocarbon distilled from crude oil is not exactly environmentally friendly

These are Greenpeace activists at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany. I wonder if they realize that those nice little candles are hydrocarbons distilled from crude oil, and that they're responsible for more carbon emissions than a 40W light bulb? Stop lighting candles for Earth Hour! You're making the problem worse.

The Super Bowl and the Audi Green Police

Here is the commercial in question:

Ha ha, funny. Or not. When I first watched this commercial, I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be funny or serious. In fact, I still don't know. I suspect that they were trying to be funny by being absurd, but it doesn't work:

In order for a commercial like this to be funny, it has to be absurd. Woefully, the kind of fascism seen in these commercials is no longer absurd in that “it could not happen.”

Exactly my sentiment.

Countries such as Australia have already banned incandescent bulbs, so it really so far that someone would come to your house to check on your bulbs? Maybe a little bit, not enough to be funny/absurd. Stores already eschew plastic bags for more "environmental friendly" options, so is that part really so funny either?

They call it Green Police, but it looks like Green Gastapo to me. This is fascism, and there isn't anything funny about it.

Regardless of your outlook, was this ad really just "funny" or did you see some elements of realism in it, if not now, in the near future?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

That darn global warming thing keeps rearing its ugly head. Check out the latest news here and here.

More global warming alarmism

A crisis:

WASHINGTON - Faced with global warming, plants are heading for the hills. A study of 171 forest species in Western Europe shows that most of them are shifting their favored locations to higher, cooler spots.

For the first time, research can show the "fingerprints of climate change" in the distribution of plants by altitude, and not only in sensitive ecosystems, said Jonathan Lenoir of AgroParisTech in Nancy, France.

His team found "a significant upward shift of species optimum elevation, the altitude where species are the most likely to be found over their whole elevation range."

Indeed, comparing the distribution of species between 1905 and 1985 with their distribution between 1986 and 2005 showed a shift upward of 95 feet per decade, researchers led by Lenoir report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
95 feet?

And this is worth an entire article because...?

Rotten Tomatoes Caused by Climate Change?

Yeah, something else being blamed on global warming.

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

Link

Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty. Visit TCPR online at: www.tennesseepolicy.org.

29th coolest April in 114 years

Isn't it funny that a cyclone in southeast Asia is indicative of global warming, yet numbers like these don't seem to get mentioned in the "climate change" debate:

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

And so continues a noticeable cooling trend that started last year.

Prediction 1

I only had to wait a few hours (in fact, this article was published within 10 minutes of my original post). Al Gore gave me exactly what I predicted.

One down, one to go.

Myanmar cyclone

Two predictions:

1. Someone will blame it on "global warming" or "climate change".

2. The destruction of rice crops will used as an excuse for more food price increases and rationing.