NEVADA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, INC.
NOTICE: The writings posted on this Web site originating from sources other than the NEC are all believed to be in the public domain to the best of our knowledge. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, it is possible that some material on this web site may be provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner. NEC writing may be copied, distributed and published according to the copyright statement at the end of this window.
Once upon a time the Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM) published archival monitoring data on its Web site. That enabled interested parties to go back in time and look up air pollution data for a specific dates and times. For some time now, the archive has disappeared from the DAQEM Web site. The stated reason is that the data previously posted was raw data that had not yet undergone "quality" review. In lay English that means that Clark County had not yet massaged the data by casting out the numbers the County does not like. The fact is that neither the massaged data nor the raw archival data are available to the public. That was a very efficient way of eliminating public oversight. Clearly Clark County has taken its lessons from the good doctor who buries his or her mistakes.
Without full disclosure and public oversight, DAQEM monitoring data have no credibility. It is misleading data conceived in the darkest recesses of DAQEM. Data produced without sunshine and full disclosure regarding any administrative changes in raw data are worthless for any lawful purpose. It is misleading. If DAQEM data are suspect and the DAQEM is ashamed to open archival data to the public, everything the DAQEM does with their data is suspect. Should the Department disagree with this assessment, they know the number to call for a reassessment. (11-10-06)
REID GARDNER COAL FIRED POWER PLANT BLM GRANT REQUEST
Despite numerous, pending State Notices of Violation and a pending EPA Notice of Violation, Nevada Power Company (NPC) is seeking a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the proposed Ash Storage Yard and Evaporation Ponds Expansion Project (Project) near its Reid Gardner coal-fired electric power generation facility near Moapa, Clark County, Nevada.
The Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc. (NEC) filed comments on the proposal.
At the same time, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit filed a decision in the United States of American, et al., State of New York, et al., vs. Cinergy Corporation, et al. on August 17, 2006 in No. 06-1224. At issue before the Seventh Circuit was whether an increase in the maximum potential emissions on an hourly basis is the proper test for determining if new source review requirements apply. The Seventh Court found that an increase in actual emissions at industrial plants triggers new source review requirements for plants to install emissions controls. A copy of the NEC's comments, the pending Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Violation and the Seventh Circuit decision are available for reading or downloading. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. (11-10-06)
HOT NEWS! EPA AND NEVADA ADMIT THE BIG LIE!!!
The EPA has proposed to approve revisions to the Nevada SIP regulations in the June 9, 2006 Federal Register (Volume 7, Number 111, pages 33413-33416). Section III, I, B states in part [third paragraph, last sentence]:
"Since 1984, EPA has approved very few revisions to Nevada's applicable SIP despite numerous changes that have been adopted locally. As a result, the version of the rules enforceable by NDEP is often quite different from the SIP version enforceable by EPA."
The NEC has long maintained that since the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the Clean Air Act ("CAA") were signed into law in 1970, the EPA, the State of Nevada and Clark County have not complied with either statute. The above statement is an admission of non-compliance since 1984 when Clark County started operating with EPA unapproved, local, "shadow" regulations that misled the public and those regulated. In the annals of American environmental law it would be difficult of find a Federal/State scheme to defraud that comes anywhere near the scope and harm to the public that exceeds Clark County's scheme. For thirty-six years the citizens of and visitors to Clark County suffered under foul, harmful air as the direct result of administrative lies. The result is a Las Vegas Valley epidemic of lung disease that leads the nation. Clark County's press releases over the years chronicle the fraud.
This recent attempt at compliance is a direct result of NEC's continued pressure on Local, State and Federal agencies to comply with NEPA and the CAA. Our only regret is that it took so long to accomplish. For a copy of the Federal Register text, CLICK HERE. (06-26-06)
FAA SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)
The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) has announced a revision to the agency's current departure procedures from McCarran Airport that will have a detrimental health and safety impact on the citizens of the West side of the Las Vegas Valley. The Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc (NEC) has prepared timely comments and filed them by March 14. For a copy of the timely filed comments, CLICK HERE. (06-21-06)
2006 WEB SITE REVISIONS
FEDERAL AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN SOUTHERN NEVADAThe Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Clark County Public Works (CCPW), Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) and the Federal Hawaii Administration (FHWA) are continuing the Northern and Western Beltway sections (now dubbed CO 2.5) charade while moving full speed ahead to complete the Beltway and then turn it into part of the Federal Highway system. The only problem is that the four agencies are working together without National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Air Act (CAA) or Federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) compliance or conformity, disclaimers notwithstanding. The agencies claim compliance while doing an environmental assessment (EA) here and there and occasionally a project by project environmental impact statement (EIS). The rarest document in all of Nevada is an air pollution inventory, a document that totals all of the air pollution in the Las Vegas Valley and is kept current. An air pollution inventory is the foundation for a NEPA cumulative impact statement (CIS).
Federal agencies are required to comply with NEPA, CAA, APA and their own agency statutes and regulations. Agency regulations are usually less stringent that the other three Acts. Regardless, federal agencies must comply with all applicable Acts, environmental and agency, even those that are more stringent than their own agency regulations. Local and state agencies may assist in that compliance but final responsibility rests with the federal agency in charge. Since NEPA and the CAA were signed into law, the federal agencies operating in the Las Vegas Valley have abdicated their responsibilities to local and state agencies. In that process, federal agencies are required to scrutinize local and state planning and supporting data carefully before approving the work for federal funding. Do the federal agencies do that? They claim to but our experience is that most of the time federal agencies simply rubber stamp long range plans such as Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and short range Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs). The statutory responsibility always lies with the federal agency. Documents prepared by local and state agencies are not subject to APA or judicial review until the federal agency formally accepts the work. The FHWA may not lawfully shift the compliance burden to local and state agencies and by that ruse, abdicate their responsibilities. They did do that anyway. All of this has been going on since 1970.
In the case of the FHWA as an example, the agency simply refuses to notice or furnish copies of final approval documents that result in federal funding to interested parties. The final approval documents consist of Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), Decision Records (DRs) and Conformity Determinations (CDs). When asked, requesting parties are referred to the state and local agencies. The bureaucratic trick is that the federal agency is subject to federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review at the request of any member of the public. Local and state agencies are not subject to federal APA review until the process reaches the federal level. Some federal agencies claim they do not keep mailing lists for final funding documents. The game is then extended to require specific requests for specific documents when the public has no way of knowing what documents are involved since they are completed in secret and are not, in many cases, noticed to the public. The list of project documents remains hidden. Newspaper notices noticing the availability of final funding documents are not common. Some agencies do not post the documents on their Web sites. Public involvement at any level other than the least important levels of the NEPA and CAA processes is fantasy. The public has sixty-days from the date of final approvals and final funding documents to request an APA judicial review. No problem. Some federal agencies simply hide the documents from the public. Some federal agencies refer inquiries to state and local agencies that are not subject to APA judicial review and are legally insufficient sources for APA review.
To make matters worse, there are no Nevada NEPA compliant, direct and indirect, cumulative environmental impact statements (EISs) since NEPA and the CAA were first signed into law in 1970. One EIS for the Northern and Western Beltway was funded by the FHWA in 1992. The EIS was later terminated without completion in 1998. The reason was that after finishing Tier 1 of a two tier EIS, the County promised to answer 162 difficult questions in Tier 2. When the managers realized they could not finish the EIS without making admissions they did not want to make, they simply closed down the EIS project. The State returned the FHWA EIS money under pressure from the Nevada Environmental Coalition Inc. (NEC). We suspect that the money came back by another route.
In our opinion, federal agencies conspire to defeat the language, spirit and intent of NEPA, CAA and APA. Without evidence of NEPA, CAA and APA compliance, all federal funding in Nevada and the Las Vegas Valley is and has been unlawful since 1970. (Rev. 06-21-06)
LET THE SUN SHINE IN!
The Clark County Department of Air Quality Management (DAQEM) embarked on an Air Quality Regulation Improvement Project (AQRIP) on June 10, 2005. The DAQEM published purpose is “a comprehensive revision and re-write of the Air Quality Regulations.” For a copy of our initial comments, CLICK HERE. In order to implement new DAQEM regulations, prerequisites are required such as modeling to show the capacity of the air shed. The modeling assumptions must be EPA scrutinized and approved. We have to know how many tons of an air pollutant can be exhausted into the air shed without violating State and Federal standards. Once we subtract a substantial cushion from that limit, then and only then do we know how much air pollution can be permitted at the local level industry-by-industry and source by source. Regulations drafted and approved absent that information are legally insufficient for any lawful purpose. AQRIP has the process reversed. The limit minus the cushion sets the source limits, not the other way around. (Rev. 03-01-06)
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
For a copy of the NEC’s and Hall’s Comments regarding the June 2, 2004 land sale Environmental Assessment (“EA”) in .pdf, CLICK HERE.
On March 29, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Kent J. Dawson found for the BLM Defendants and against Plaintiff Hall in the two, above-named consolidated cases without further comment. Judge Dawson is a Senator Harry Reid nominee. He was previously employed as a City Attorney in Henderson.
NINTH CIRCUIT CONSOLIDATED APPEAL NO. 04-16096
Hall then filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the above-consolidated actions in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 19, 2004. Hall filed his Opening Brief on September 20, 2004. For an Adobe .pdf copy of Appellant’s Opening Brief, CLICK HERE. For a copy of Appellant’s Reply Brief, CLICK HERE. The appeals panel issued an unpublished (unconstitutional) Order affirming the judgment of the U.S. District Court on March 6, 2006. (Rev. 06-21-06)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR NEVADA
While the cases filed to date are personal to Hall, the public has a significant
quality of life and pulmonary health stake in their outcome. One of the major
reasons for the Valley’s dust problems is the fact that the federal
agencies have operated outside the law with impunity since NEPA and the CAA
were enacted. The federal agencies involved are fighting to keep it that way.
Our
PREVIOUS NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINAL DECISIONS
HALL V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL, CV-S-03-0477-RLH-RJJ.
The Ninth Circuit declined to decide the case and that decision in not published.
The legal effect is that the U.S. District Court's decision stands.
The action was against the Federal Highway Administration and the Department
of Transportation regarding their failure to comply with the National Environmental
Protection Act (“NEPA”), the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and
the federal Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) prior to funding
and permitting federal highway actions in the Las Vegas Valley. An Adobe (.pdf)
copy of the First Amended Complaint for Judicial Review and to Enjoin may be
read or downloaded by CLICKING
HERE.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment filed August 4, 2003. Click for the MOTION, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, DECLARATION and STATEMENT OF FACTS. Plaintiff received DOT Defendants reply and opposition to the motion for summary judgment on August 19, 2003. Plaintiff Hall filed a REPLY MEMORANDUM on August 26, 2203. Click for a copy of the COURT’S OCTOBER 8, 2003 ORDER re: cross motions to dismiss/summary judgment. The decision was not the clean knockout blow Defendants had hoped. The case will continue. On the points where Hall did not prevail, Hall has filed a motion to correct errors in the Order. Click for an Adobe .pdf copy of PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINDINGS AND ORDER. Click for a copy of PLAINTIFF’S REPLY MEMORANDUM filed on November 10, 2003. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion on December 5, 2003. (Rev. 03-11-04) Federal Defendants filed a Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on February 13, 2004. Plaintiff’s second Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment along with a Declaration in Support was filed on March 10, 2004 Click for a .pdf copy of the CROSS-MOTION AND DECLARATION. The U.S. District Court issued an order and judgment in favor of the Defendants, the Federal Highway Administration. Plaintiff Hall then appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, infra.
Plaintiff
Hall appealed the district court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals on July
30, 2004.
Appellant’s Opening Brief was filed on October
4, 2004.
Click for an Adobe (.pdf) copy of APPELLANT’S
OPENING BRIEF.
The FHWA Appellees moved for Summary Affirmance, the appellate court version
of the bum’s rush. Appellant Hall filed an opposing response. Click
for an Adobe .pdf copy of APPELLANT’S
MOTION RESPONSE.
Appellees never did file an answer to Hall’s opening brief. On March
2, 2005,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying federal defendants’
motion for Summary Affirmance. The federal defendants filed their answering
brief no later than April
18, 2005.
Plaintiff Hall subsequently filed his answering brief within 14 days
later. In denying summary disposition, the appeals court stated, “Appellees’
motion for summary disposition of this appeal is denied because the arguments
raised in appellant’s opening brief are not so insubstantial as not
to require further argument.” Federal Appellees filed their Brief of
the Federal Defendants on April
18, 2005.
Hall filed his reply brief on May
2, 2005.
Click for an Adobe .pdf copy of APPELLANT’S
REPLY BRIEF.
HALL V. EPA, 273 F.3D 1146 (NINTH CIR. 2001). When Clark County
submitted it proposed state implementation plan with revisions to the county’s
air quality plan that modified rules governing new stationary sources seeking
permits and the EPA preliminarily approved it, Hall filed for a judicial review
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded
the approval on the question of whether the EPA properly assessed the adequacy
of the revised new source review program to the task of meeting current attainment
requirements. To view the full text of the Ninth Circuit’s decision
in Adobe (.pdf), CLICK HERE. (03-15-05)
HALL V. NORTON, ET AL., NINTH CIR. NO. 03-15719. See Hall
v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (No. 99-16153). To view the
September 12, 2001, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Adobe (.pdf), CLICK HERE.
This is the original Del Webb Anthem land exchange
OZONE WARNING! Forest Fire smoke mixed with ozone is a nasty air pollution combination. Fine particulate matter deeply embedded into the lungs is not going to come out. Toxic particulate matter irritates the lungs causing lung disease such as asthma or worse. The finest forms of particulate matter pass through the lungs into the blood stream where they irritate the interiors of blood vessels. The Department of Air Quality Management has a remedy they have not mentioned. The remedy is surgical masks. If there is one thing, less macho than wearing a surgical mask it has to be lying in a hospital bed struggling to breathe. (06-30-05)
Do you feeling tired as the day wears on? If you are, you may have a problem you may not recognize. Once again we are in Ozone season. As local County and City governments cram more and more people, automobiles, trucks, off road equipment and industrial sources of air pollution into the Las Vegas Valley, our problem with Ozone air pollution is growing. Ozone is a particularly nasty air pollutant that can result in or aggravate pulmonary disease. Ozone can also cause you to become extremely tired. You should not exercise when Ozone levels are at their highest. Ozone levels are at their lowest at about 7 a.m. Ozone usually peaks just after lunch. It is our experience that Physicians are only rarely aware of the Ozone, fatigue problem.
Ozone is not visible to the naked eye. It is lighter than air. It floats up, particularly to the West side of the Valley. That means that it floats up around the rim of the Valley particularly on the West side and in parts of Boulder City and Henderson. If you would like to research the issue more try the links we have included. If you click on the air pollution numbers in the County charts, you will get twenty-four hour line graphs. Do not let anyone fool you with green colors on charts. Ozone danger limits are set based on political expediency regardless of the science. We are getting a good slug of Ozone now. One more caution, the last thing you need in the house at any time is an air "cleaner" that produces Ozone.
http://www.ccairquality.org/output/chart.html
http://cfpub.epa.gov/airnow/index.cfm?action=airnow.showlocal&CityID=120
The Las Vegas press has reported that more than 100 high-rise condominiums are on the drawing boards and that at least thirty will actually be built along the Las Vegas strip. The one thing you will not read is that the condominiums are going up in one of the worst air pollution areas in the Valley. Perhaps Steve Wynn will issue surgical masks to his guests. The only thing worse is the aroma therapy the casinos are using to get guests into a playing mood. Somehow the casinos do not quite get the fact that the aroma therapy is bad news on top of the strip’s air pollution, particularly summer Ozone air pollution. Some will aggravate their asthma and others will have panic attacks. Some will be rushed to the hospital. None is likely catch on regarding what is happening to them. Will we never learn? (Rev. 05-24-05)
The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) perchlorate, intake, raw and finished water contamination data are now posted. The perchlorate reports are now located about 60% down the scroll. Look for the SNWA logo.
The Clark County Nevada Board of Commissioners has voted to submit a Draft Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) for High-Wind Events to the EPA. NEC’s president Robert W. Hall spoke in opposition at the March 15, 2005 public hearing. For a copy of his comments in MS Word, CLICK HERE. If you thought Clark County’s local offset credit plan was a great fraud, you will love NEAP. (03-15-05)
NEC REPORT ON THE CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
The NEC has prepared a report on the CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT and its Air Pollution Control District (now called Air Quality District). The process started in 1998. We now have Version 5 of the report available for viewing and downloading in Microsoft word. The report reveals some of the reasons why Clark County has not been successful in controlling air pollution in the valley. The download may be found by CLICKING HERE.
EXTRA! NEC President Robert Hall spoke at a public hearing before the Clark County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, April 19, 2005. The subject was the adoption of a new local rule regarding federally approved offset credits. Offset credit programs in Clark County have a long, tortured history of unaccountability. Hall’s comments were a summary. For a copy of the written comments, CLICK HERE. (05-03-05)
NECNEV AND HALL FILE COMMENTS ON
THE RTC’s RTP/TIP AMENDMENTS
The RTC has prepared their latest FY Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”) 2004-2025 and Transportation Improvement Program (“TIP”) FY 2004-2006 amendments. For a copy of our corrected comments in response in Adobe .pdf, CLICK HERE. (Rev. 01-16-04).
On December 4, 2003, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) quietly issued its conformity finding regarding the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) approved by the RTC on August 14, 2003 on August 14, 2003 and by NDOT on October 14, 2003. The FHWA continues to keep conformity findings quiet. That policy is not in anyone’s best interest. (03-19-04)
CLARK COUNTY ADMITS THE TRUTH ABOUT CARBON MONOXIDE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRESS! We have all heard of the wonderful progress Clark County has made in controlling carbon monoxide. For the truth, CLICK HERE.
From
Robert W. Hall, NEC President If you are new to environmental issues in the Las Vegas Valley, this Web site makes more sense if you understand that neither Clark County Nevada nor the Federal agencies operating in the Las Vegas Valley serious non-attainment area has complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), Clean Air Act (“CAA”) or the Federal Administrative Procedures Act since they were first enacted by Congress. The Valley has serious air and water pollution problems. After more than eight years of community oversight effort, the NEC has accumulated evidence that Clark County's and Federal agency non-compliance with Clean Air Act is the result of malfeasance or worse. Valley individuals and businesses have profited handsomely from the business of manipulating local, state and federal air pollution enforcement. Some of those charged with the responsibility of reducing air pollution have not placed that duty high on their list of priorities. The few areas that have shown some air pollution improvement are the areas that are under heavy, continuous pressure from a "thin green line" of environmental volunteers who represent Clark County's political spectrum. Read on about your county, state and federal governments at work. It is a fascinating story. (Rev. 01-27-06)
QUESTIONS AND OPINION ANSWERS
UPDATE. The EPA has preliminarily approved the County’s new source review plan. (10-20-04)
What is the current Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) approved state implementation plan (“SIP”) applicable to Clark County? Answer: The EPA’s posted Web site answer is the 1979/82 EPA approved SIP. In fact, that SIP has lapsed. Clark County does have an approved carbon monoxide (“CO”) SIP. The particle matter ten microns or less (“PM10”) SIP is now EPA preliminarily approved pending a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals review initiated by NEC’s president Robert W. Hall. The judicial review is currently under review by a three-judge panel in San Francisco.
May submitted but unapproved SIPs be used by those regulated for any lawful purpose? Answer: Not in our opinion until the SIPs go through a public comment period after preliminary approval, the EPA reviews all public comments, the EPA publishes a final approval in the Federal Register, and the SIPs then survive any Ninth Circuit of Appeals review challenge. Ninth Circuit case law suggests that approvals that are subject to judicial review are not final. Those who advise people to go ahead on submitted but finally unapproved SIPs may not have taken into consideration the possibility that an appeals court could vacate and remand a submitted but finally unapproved SIP. When the U.S. Justice Department brings enforcement actions in Clark County, the authority they name in court documents is the EPA approved, 1979/82 SIP, not some submitted but unapproved SIP. In fact, the 1979/81 SIP does not meet the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The SIP has lapsed. Most local, state and federal agencies in the Las Vegas Valley are on legal notice by Hall for a list of all of the air pollution actions each agency took after the 1999 SIP submittal. The County told you that, did they not?
If we followed Clark County regulations and have Clark County permits, are we protected from federal or civil actions? Answer: Not if the County cannot show unambiguous compliance with finally approved SIPs that have survived judicial review. The County’s use of less stringent, local regulations since 1984 that are claimed to be more stringent than the 1979 SIP regulations is not smart or helpful. The County is now finally revising all of its rules.
What about going ahead with federal funding and approvals based on approved emissions budgets from preliminarily approved SIPs? Answer: “If an initial agency action may be modified or reversed during administrative review, the decision is non-final while that administrative review is pending. Ma v. Reno, 114 F.3d 128 (9th Cir. 1997).” The issue on appeals court review is when or if a submitted SIP is vacated and remanded. Agencies and sources of air pollution are vulnerable until the appeals court makes a decision favorable to the approving agency. Beware of the advice bureaucrats give you. Get professional, conservative, experienced legal advice. If air pollution sources continue polluting the air without legally sufficient authority, anyone in the Las Vegas Valley serious non-attainment area may have a legitimate air pollution claim against sources of air pollution. Plaintiff’s lawyers have not caught on, yet. It would be helpful if the County were more candid regarding these issues.
But the County told us…. Answer: If the County told you to rob a bank …? There is nothing less expensive than professional, conservative, experienced legal advice. Get that advice. Did the County inform you that their 1999 PM10 SIP submittal was vacated and remanded in 2001? Did you get legal advice as to what you were supposed to do then? Did the County tell you that Hall submitted thirty-three pounds of hard, single space paper evidence and legal argument regarding the County’s 2002 SIP submittal? (Rev. 06-21-06)
Federal agencies and States are responsible for federal air pollution compliance and enforcement. Both Federal agencies and States may delegate the responsibilities. Nevada delegated its authority to Clark County. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires that all Federal agencies operating in the Las Vegas Valley serious, air pollution, non-attainment area complete an initial, National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), cumulative impact determination in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Valley is in serious air pollution non-attainment for dust (PM10), and Ozone (O3). The purpose of the NEPA EIS requirement is to notify the public, local and state air pollution agencies of the amount of direct and indirect air pollution Federal agencies are responsible for making in the Valley. The required document is a disclosure that alerts the public, local and state agencies is the first step in a chain of serious air pollution causation in the Valley. NEPA requires full disclosure of the direct and indirect air pollution attributable to the air pollution actions of Federal agencies. Federal agencies could comply with the NEPA PM10, cumulative impact determination requirement by listing all of their Valley projects, year by year on an Excel or Access spread sheet. PM10 air pollution can be totaled using actual, measured data or EPA approved formulas. The requirement is not onerous. No federal agency operating in the Las Vegas Valley has ever completed a legally sufficient, Valley, NEPA cumulative impact determination much less subsequent amendments. The federal agencies operating in the Valley do not want their air pollution totals published and publicly noticed. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) require that states complete a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. A SIP is a plan that includes the enforcement criteria for reaching cleaner air attainment at the earliest possible date. The only complete SIP Nevada has had is a 1979/82 approved SIP for the Las Vegas Valley. The 1979/82 Valley, EPA approved SIP is much more stringent than federal standards. For that reason, conformity to the approved SIP would have resulted in cleaner air a long time ago.
Clark County and Nevada are required to amend the 1979/82 EPA approved SIP and achieve EPA amendment approval in order to bring the approved SIP into compliance with the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA has approved a carbon monoxide (CO) plan. Clark County does not have a finally approved PM10 plan despite statutory deadlines and statutory provisions for sanctions. In addition to federal agency, NEPA, EIS cumulative impact compliance, the CAA requires that Federal agencies complete an initial and subsequent conformity determinations and updates. By conformity, the statutes require conformance to the most stringent of a previously approved State SIP or Federal standards, whichever are more stringent. In Clark County, the State standards are more stringent. CAA means conformity to the county’s EPA approved 1979/82 SIP and its standards that are more stringent than Federal standards. Nevada and Clark County have never met the initial or subsequent final certification requirements for all non-attainment air pollutants. According to the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7506(c); CAA § 176(c)), a failure to conform to the 1979/82 EPA approved SIP prohibits Federal agency from funding or approving any act prohibited by the Clean Act conformity statute. All Federal agencies in the Valley have ignored the CAA and NEPA requirements regarding initial and subsequent cumulative impact certifications and conformity determinations that do not conform to the EPA approved, 1979/82 SIP.
Valley local and state agencies must submit certifications of conformity to the SIP to Federal agencies in order to obtain Federal funding and Federal approvals. On information and belief, each certification we have seen is misleading. Since 1984 Clark County has ignored the EPA approved SIP by the use of false and claimed compliance with “shadow” local regulations that the EPA has either not approved or in one instance approved only to have the approval remanded and vacated to the EPA by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The continuing failure of local and state agencies to conform to the EPA approved 1979/82 SIP is intentional. Clark County has no incentive to comply with either NEPA or the CAA since that means slowing down Clark County’s political policy of runaway growth. Runaway growth greases the gears of the current political regime.
Clark County has claimed conformity to legally insufficient, submitted but unapproved SIPs and has received the benefits of submittal without approval. Clark County has also used submitted and unapproved SIPs as the basis for Federal funding and approval despite the fact that submitted SIPs are legally insufficient for that purpose. Clark County has also rescinded its submitted PM10 (dust) SIPs after receiving the benefits of submittal. In both instances, and Clark County avoided 1990 CAA amendments time limits and sanctions by the use of misleading approvals and/or certifications. In one instance Clark County received the benefits of a 1999 SIP submittal that was preliminarily approved by the EPA. The EPA’s preliminary approval was later vacated and remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001. After the approval was vacated, Clark County did not roll back or return the benefits the County received. The County made a decision to take the benefits before it knew the result of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judicial review. No matter what the County has submitted, the submittals are misleading. Clark County has not actually conformed to anything that is legally sufficient much less real. Despite the lack of a legal basis for conformity certifications, Clark County kept the benefits based on misleading statements and misleading applications in order to receive Federal money. Clark County has not pursued a conservative legal policy. All along, Clark County has avoided the requirement to certify conformity to its EPA approved 1979/82 SIP. All of the Federal agencies involved have ignored the misleading statements involved. As a result, there is no legally sufficient basis for anyone to assume that Clark County has complied with the environmental laws of this country. At every level, local, State and Federal, the Federal funding process has involved statements that each agency knew and should have known were misleading. What could these people be thinking? (Rev. 01-27-06)
HOW SERIOUS ARE THE FALSE CLAIMS AND FALSE STATEMENTS ISSUES?
The issues are very serious. The people of the Las Vegas Valley would be healthier today if local, state and federal agencies had complied without our nation’s environmental laws. Those responsible for the misleading documents are either arrogant or not well informed. Making false statements to Federal officials is not a good idea. Federal officials who approve documents they know or should know are misleading are in our opinion, not thinking clearly.
“Title 31 U.S.C. § 3729 – False Claims. (a) Liability for Certain Acts. – Any person who – (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government; (3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid; … Is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus three times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person, except that if the court finds that – (A) the person committing the violation of this subsection furnished officials of the United States responsible for investigating false claims violations with all information known to such person about the violation within 30 days after the date on which the defendant first obtained the information; (B) such person fully cooperated with any government investigation of such violation; and (C) at the time such person furnished the United States with the information about the violation, no criminal prosecution, civil action, or administrative action had commenced under this title with respect to such violation, and the person did not have actual knowledge of the existence of an investigation into such violation; the court may assess not less than 2 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of the person. A person violating this subsection shall also be liable to the United States Government for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any such penalty or damages.”
Other laws also apply. “Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Statements or entries generally. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully – (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” (01-27-06)
OOPS!
Submitted SIPs are legally insufficient for lawful funding or benefit purpose. Only EPA finally approved SIPs justify funding and other benefit certifications. The certifications were made anyway. Funding and benefits continued unabated from agencies such as the EPA, FAA, FHWA and BLM. With the withdrawal of submitted SIPs, even the submitted SIP charade disappeared. The State of Nevada and Clark County are now in the difficult position of having made false certifications to federal agencies in order to obtain federal funding and other substantial benefits. Federal funding since 1990 involves many millions of dollars. Making false statements in order to obtain federal funding are not only serious violations of law, false certifications are not public employee protected acts. With tongue planted firmly in check, we assume that the State of Nevada and Clark County are in the process of paying back all of the federal funding and benefits they obtained since 1990 in order to tidy up this latest series of judgment lapses. We also note that while our State and County governments were submitting misleading SIPs that helped improve public employee salaries and benefits, the Valley’s citizens were breathing some of the nation’s most polluted air. The quality of life and economic burden of the related health problems continue to be ignored by our State and County governments. (Rev. 01-27-06)
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY HAVE SOME PROBLEMS THEY HAVE NOT ANTICIPATED
Take a look at this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision at ...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0215189p.pdf.
Want to bet this will come as a shock to those at all levels of government? Doing favors for friends may result in some very costly litigation for those involved. (01-14-03)
The Las Vegas-Review Journal, Thursday, January 16, 2003 had an article entitled, “Center helps asthmatic children breathe easier.” http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jan-16-Thu-2003/news/20484058.html
For the source of the Center For Disease Control (CDC) data presented in the article, go to ...
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/asthma/brfss/brfssdata.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/asthma/brfss/images/l1.pdf. (01-16-03)
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) RANKS NEVADA ASTHMA RATES
Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research shows Nevada as having 13.4 percent of residents saying they have suffered from asthma. The 1998 Nevada percentage was 7.2. That is well beyond the classic definition of an epidemic. (Revised 09-04-01)
Asthma is caused or aggravated by all forms of air pollution. While particulate or dust (PM10) is commonly cited as a cause, asthma is also associated with ozone.
Nationally, ozone air quality is improving, but not in Las Vegas. The valley is now experiencing high and unhealthy levels of the air pollutant ozone. Ozone is lighter than air and tends to float up in the valley. Air pollutants from the Beltway and continued runaway growth will exacerbate that problem.
Ozone is a toxic gas. Ozone is formed by a combination of sunlight, nitrous oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from vehicle, industrial and home air pollution. Ozone is a component of smog. The first clinical sign is fatigue and then extreme fatigue. Obviously, fatigue may have multiple causes. Fatigue caused by ozone may not be recognized as such by your government or poorly informed medical authorities. Ozone effects are cumulative. Any amount of ozone can accumulate to affect your health.
We are all affected by ozone. The elderly and children are most severely affected. Ozone can lead respiratory tract inflammation, shortness of breath, irritation, burning, reduced lung function and asthma. Ozone may aggravate chronic diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis, heart disease and may reduce the immune system's ability to fight off bacterial infections in the respiratory system. Particulate matter or dust (PM10) and carbon monoxide (CO) air pollution make the overall air pollution problem worse.
When your government ignores the laws that are designed to protect your quality of life, you are at serious risk. Our well paid County Commissioners and county executives will not be around when the health of you and your family deteriorates and the medical bills break you financially.
We suggest that you call and insist on talking directly with your elected representatives. Insist on action which must include a moratorium on runaway growth. We cannot continue a program of runaway growth and stay healthy. Stay silent and you and your family will pay the price. (Revised 08-25-01)
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITHHELD THE TRUTH AGAIN.
If you have not read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, go to Amazon.com and order your copy today. The investigative report is now on sale in both hard cover and paperback. The report in book form is great reading. It is an incredible story of money, deceit, arrogance and stupidity at the highest levels of science and government. The investigative report is backed up by the most careful research you will ever see in a report of this kind. This book ranks with Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring. A hint of what you will find is that fluoride has long been known to have an adverse effect on the central nervous system and the brain. Surely your government told you that. Read the book! When you finish reading the book, think about putting pressure on your elected officials to get fluoride out of our water for your sake and the sake of your family. The legislators who took the fluoride industry’s money and who are responsible for the “tricky Dick” legislation that has resulted in the poisoning of our citizens should hang their collective heads in shame starting with Chris "G". (Rev. 11-10-06)
FOOD WARNING!
To read and download a Monosodium Glutamate (“MSG”) warning message, CLICK HERE.
CURRENT SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY PERCHLORATE WATER DATA
We have a SWAPE (Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise) .pdf slide presentation regarding perchlorate and the Colorado River that is interesting. To see the Adobe .pdf slide presentation (5,501 kb), CLICK HERE. For more information on SWAPE, check the bottom of the Web site.
We have the data and line graphs regarding current perchlorate water concentrations featuring data from both intakes and both water treatment plants. AMS is the Alfred Merritt Smith water treatment plant. RM is the River Mountains water treatment plant. The AMS intake is higher than the RM intake which accounts for the differences in the perchlorate levels. The December 29, 2003, December 28, 2004, September 06, 2005 and October 12 , 2006 (approval dates) Lake Mead raw and finished water and December 23, 2003, November 22, 2004,September 19, 2005 and October 12 , 2006 (approval dates) intake perchlorate data sheets are now posted. (All charts are in MS Excel.) (Rev. 11-10-06)
From time to time the newspapers publish articles written from by members of various think tanks, particularly those based in Washington, D.C. Unless you know how these organizations are funded, do not assume the articles are objective or balanced. The problem with most of what we read regarding air and water pollution is that most of it is based on toxicology research, a bankrupt discipline. If you want better sources of information, look for immunotoxicology research. If you do not understand the difference, now is the time to learn. Our governmental agencies are downplaying the long term, immune system effects of perchlorate on the quality of our lives because the cost of cleaning the perchlorate debacle up is substantial.
Robert W. Hall, NEC’s president was a panelist at the May 3, 2004 workshop. An Adobe .pdf copy of Hall’s presentation and handout may be downloaded by CLICKING HERE. (Rev. 04-18-04)
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS (UNLV) REPORT ON PERCHLORATE NOW AVAILABLE
www.nevada.edu/epscor/perchloratefinalreport.pdf
“The Fate and Transport of Perchlorate in a Contaminated Site in the Las Vegas Valley, 2003” funded by the EPA is also available here in Adobe .pdf by CLICKING HERE. WARNING!!! 11.9 mb. The UNLV computer is faster. (11-24-03)
FLASH! Perchlorate is in your lettuce. For the Wall St. Journal news article. http://www.ewg.org/.
Re: Sunday, January 5, 2003 perchlorate article. The point of the article and our current knowledge regarding perchlorate (rocket fuel oxidizer) is that it is a toxin that should not be in our water. Our local (local water agencies and county commission), state (Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, the legislature and the governor) and federal (Environmental Protection Agency) governments and their agencies have failed in their duty to provide drinking water free of this toxin and other toxins. The fact is that every time you turn on a Las Vegas Valley faucet, toxins come with the water. The Kerr McGee clean-up effort reported in the article is smoke and mirrors, too little, too late.
Toxins are the most harmful to the most vulnerable; children, pregnant mothers, and the elderly. Over a period of time, the effects on everyone will be slow and eventually troublesome depending on variables such as the exposure time, the amounts, genetic differences and life experience differences. Not only do we cook with water laced with perchlorate, we drink it, we shower in it and when we try to avoid it by using water purchased in plastic bottles, we get an estrogen mimic from the plasticizer used to make the bottles flexible.
We are never exposed to just one toxin in a vacuum. When we add the toxin fluoride, arsenic and other water contaminants to the mix, the prospects are not cheerful. Heavily lobbied governments will point out the difficulty of pinpointing causation and continue to procrastinate. No one is going to start flopping around on the floor from these toxins. They harm slowly and are difficult to diagnose.
Governments hate to admit that problems exist especially with water. While all of this is going on, we as a community keep beckoning to the very vulnerable to come to the Las Vegas Valley so that they can share in our water (and air) toxins. They will work in places where the drinking water is contaminated. Their children will go to schools where the drinking water is contaminated. Our governments and our water agencies use our money to tell us how wonderful everything is while they drink bottled water. Those who regulate our water are mostly officials from Reno and Carson City whose water is not contaminated with perchlorate. Each water report published with our money omits the truth of the toxins in our water that also happen to include the residue from prescription drugs.
We elect the officials who ignore water toxins. Until and unless we are willing to take the time and trouble to demand action to remove these toxins from our water supplies, bottoms up! If we are not willing to help ourselves, no one is going to do it for us. If you are able, run for office. We must ALL donate at least one dollar each to one or more who do run for office. If we fail to do that, we get the result from those who finance political campaigns. Look into the mirror and see the enemy. He or she is us.
WHO ARE WE? NECNEVThe Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc. is a coalition of community organizations and individuals with related interests and skills who are actively involved in Las Vegas Valley's environmental issues. This Web site is the responsibility of the NEC. The Web site is a community, public service, environmental news site. The NEC does not sell anything and is not-for-profit. While the NEC seeks consensus on environmental issues from valley environmental organizations, each organization has its own agenda. For that reason, the editorial opinions and beliefs expressed on this web site are those of the NEC. They may or may not also be the opinions and beliefs of organizations the NEC consults and cooperates with. When we publish a consensus statement, we shall clearly state that fact.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Aviation Agency, State of Nevada, Nevada Legislature, Clark County Commission, city councils of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, and Clark County Board of Health all share responsibility for the current air and water pollution situation in the Las Vegas Valley. There is a consensus among the valley's thin green line of environmental groups and individuals that land speculation and development have resulted in thirty years of disregard for the health and safety of the citizens of the Las Vegas Valley.
Local government's answer, particularly Clark County's answer, is to spend millions of dollars on cable television propaganda where the intent is to convince us that they care about air and water pollution issues. The truth is that for the most part, local and state governments have had a business as usual attitude dominated by land speculation and development.
The valley's organized advocacy for clean air and water policies has come from the Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc. and the environmental groups who work with and support the coalition. For the first time in memory, organized citizens are successfully putting pressure on local governments to change their ways. One small step in that process is this Web site. We urge everyone with access to this site to check it at least once a week. We intend to grow and post a large amount of valley environmental information on this site.
THE NEC SUPPORTS AND RECEIVES SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS:
CITIZEN ALERT
For those interested in Yucca Mountain nuclear storage issues, please go to the Citizen Alert Web site, http://www.citizenalert.org. Contact Peggy Maze Johnson, Executive Director, P.O. Box 17173, Las Vegas, NV 89114, 796-5662, FAX 796-3697 or pmj1@citizenalert.org
The NEC supports and commends Citizen Alert's years of effort toward keeping Nevada free of nuclear waste.
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT
Title V task force issue oriented. Contact Kelly Haragan, Counsel, Environmental Integrity Project, 919 18th St., NW Suite 975, Washington, DC 20006, 202-263-4449, FAX 202-296-8822.
NEVADA CAR OWNERS ASSOCIATION, SOUTHERN REGION
For more information, contact NCOA President Jim Sohns, 435-3183, FAX: 450-9464. The meetings are held every third Tuesday at Skinny Dugans, 4127 West Charleston, West of Valley View at 7:30 p.m. necoasnv@aol.com.
NEVADA SENIORS COALITION
For more information call Ken Mahal, President, 737-1377. Meetings are held at mezzanine floor of Boulder Station Casino, 10:00 a.m., second Thursday each month.
The Southern Nevada Group of the Toyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club works to protect Nevada's air, water, and unique desert from poor planning and uncontrolled growth. The group promotes planning smart for a clean and healthy Las Vegas. Please contact Lydia Ball at the Sierra Club's field office at 702-732-7750, FAX 702-734-5831 or by logging on to www.sierraclub.org.
The group meets at 7:30 p.m. on the second Wednesday of every month at Nevada Power, 6226 West Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas (drive to the back of the building and enter there). Conservation meetings are at 6:30 p.m. on the Third Tuesday of every month at the Sierra Club S. Nevada Field Office, 732 S. 6th Street, Suite 200-B, Las Vegas, NV 89101. (Revised 08-31-06)
SWAPE (SOIL/WATER/AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE)
SWAPE may be contacted at 201 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor, Santa Monica, California 90401. Ask for Matt Hagemann. Tel: (949) 887-9013; Fax: (310) 393-4909; Email: mhagemann@swape.com
WESTERN LANDS PROJECT
The project is based in Seattle. For more information, contact Joanne Hedou or Janine Blaelock, Director, P.O. Box 95545, Seattle, WA 98145-2545, 206-325-3503, FAX 206-325-3515, e-news@westernlands.org, http://westernlands.org.
NECNEV WEB SITE
Copyright 2000-20006. Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to publish the NEC generated information posted on this site without charge, but only with full credit to the Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc. and its Web site, www.necnev.org.
Email address: rwhkc (the @ symbol) earthlink.net