Another Baykeeper Lawsuit
Looks like Humboldt Baykeeper is filing another lawsuit, this time in conjunction with Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. They want Simpson Timber to clean up the site of an old mill in Eureka just north of the foot of West Del Norte Street, right next to where I used to fish all the time back in the mid 70s.
I don't know what the truth of the matter is. Baykeeper claims pollution well in excess of EPA limits. I don't believe I've suffered any ill effects from eating all the fish and shark I've caught down there.
I'm wondering what their motivation is? I can't help but think this might be linked to the Marina Center controversy. As myself and others have pointed out here, opponents of Marina Center never brought up the pollution and capping issue with other developments on the waterfront.
Maybe this is their way of making it look as if they are looking at other polluted properties now and they're not insisting on the Balloon Tract clean up solely because of the Marina Center proposal?
Hold on a second, maybe not. Just noticed this section of the article:
Pete Nichols called the numbers “Superfund numbers,” suggesting the site is so heavily contaminated it could qualify for federal cleanup action.
Oh, I think I get. It will bring more federal money to the area. What a unique idea.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:13 AM
22 comments
22 Comments:
Both sites have been leeching into the bay for decades. There is a proposed development for one, and interest in the other. Where were these concerned citizens all those years? Wal-mart happened in 1999, yet the progressives did nothing, the government did nothing, until a private citizen steps up with a proposal. This lawsuit sounds like yet another attempt to stop ANY development that doesn't adhear to the progressive agenda - government money, government regulation, government control.
Ditto -
The City of Eureka has quite a history of excluding activists and environmentalists to the benefit of private developers. CORRUPT.
Why can't all you blind fools see that the Marina Center is the smart way to proceed and that your objections are nothing more than petty jealousy?
I agree 1:21 - it is smart. And it is the best way to proceed. Their jealousy blinds them too much.
Here is a local article about pentachlorophenol and mill workers: A CASE STUDY OF CANCER DEATHS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY.
In April, Baykeeper consultants sampled mud from the same ditch Simpson and SHN said they had cleaned up. Baykeeper found dioxin at levels tens of thousands times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers safe. The sampling also revealed high levels of dioxin in Bay sediments, where the ditch empties.
Smells like a tresspass lawsuit waiting to happen. Un-named consultants as well?
It always made me wonder why enviros let Simpson get away with so many flagrantly environmentally destructive operations while enviros jumped all over PL for far less eco-destruction.
In general, I think that everytime an environmental protection group starts using lawsuits against whatever entity they aim at, that environmental group loses scientific credibility because the information they bring to court is only that which supports their case, i.e., their "side" has become too biased to be reliable scientifically.
But that said, something needs to be done about the contaminates leaking from Simpson's mill sites.
North Korea is a greater risk to my health than any contaminants leaching into our Bay. (So is the sound of Al Gore's voice and the sight of Hillary's Clinton's face.)
You get the science you pay for. Anyone who thinks industry doesn't massage and tweek science to get the results they want is an ostrich.
Steve: Wholesale attack of environmentalists does not weaken their argument, it weakens yours. If Bay Keepers' only legal argument is based on "bias" it won't survive the first stages of the lawsuit.
You agree that something needs to be done about Simpson's contamination. If Baykeeper and CATS have a valid complaint, it will stand up in court; if not it won't.
You have to remember that court judges are not scientists. By taking an environmental issue to court enviros (wholesale word, only two bits a dozen..) are putting the issue into the hands of amatures like themselves. And court decisions as we all know are often based on who's presented the best courtroom theatre.
To me, an environmental protection group should always aim for conflict resolution outside the court system but this way doesn't get headlines like courtroom shootouts do which is why enviro groups go for the media--it makes them look like enviro defenders against __________fill in the evil corporate target of the week. But it's still plastic activism--that does more to divide the community and divert environmental attention away from greater issues such as the huge one enviros never want to face realistically because of the political consequences of pissing off their economic and political base, the unchecked environmental impact of thousands of Humboldt homesteaders on subdivided watershed ecosystems.
I completely agree with Steve.
Bit - if you want to clean it up, get off your lazy ass and buy it.
Wait a sec - your rights end where mine start, and my rights include the right to live without someone else's toxic crap leeching on to my land, into my water or into the bay that I, as part of the public, also "own". Private property rights don't mean the property owner can violate the rights of others, including the public.
It's completely amazing that this has JUST HAPPENED NOW. The Simpson Mill has been shut down for what, 15+ years now? I also have many doubts about a case study that lawyers use to cause lawsuits.
Less then two years old, so it took them two years (of taking money in, I'm sure) before they started to do something, nay, anything? And NOW this just happens? If I ran my company for two years before I did anything, what would it be called?
No you hold on anon 10:46
you wrote: my rights include the right to live without someone else's toxic crap leeching on to my land, into my water or into the bay that I, as part of the public, also "own"
What land do you own that someone else's toxic crap is leeching into your land and water system? Huh? can you answer that one.
oh no - you will assume it is leeching into the Bay because it is a great bandwagon to jump on.
So if you can't point to what land you own or what water supply this is supposedly contaminating, don't claim you can. Period.
What does the State Water Board have to say about this? That would be a bit more interesting than 10:46 crying about the sky falling.
Lots of heat, little facts. Past errors or ignorance isn't a valid precedent for justifying the status quo.
I agree that anyone who acquires information that unlawful activity is going on should generally first report it to a law enforcement body before going to court. But practically, there may be good reasons to go to court first, especially if it cost a lot to acquire the information of unlawful activity.
Why don't all of you stop the "culture wars" and welcome anyone who has provable facts that migh protect our health? The dredging of the bay issue was very similar to this and seems to have been handled with much less bickering even though everyone involved had to compromise some.
Throw the bums out if they are so corrupt but as the last board election showed, the current Harbor District members are what the people want, not the progressive elites.
Baykeeper, and its parent groups are all about lawsuits and money. That's all. Google them, you'll find out all about how they started suing, and have franchised out - now the local, here only two years bit - playing in the humboldt green pond. Sickening.
I am not going to become a member of a "make lawyers more money, pro lawsuit, anti-anything" group such as the "Baykeepers" As so far as doing one's homework, feh, back up your claims, or shoot mine down with "facts" pulled outta someone's ass.
I told you to Google them bit, but I suspect you already know ALL about them, if you aren't part of them,you're very defensive of them in previous posts here on Fred's... when I get time i'll pull it up and post it here for ya. Well, not for you. But for others who might be tempted to believe they are good guys.
Not much different than jason Singleton, and they are proving that by their actions here, let's file another lawsuit! Yeah! That's what we stand for!
Post a Comment
<< Home