EPA Produces Some Documents of Interest

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act request by this blog, the United States Environmental Agency just produced approximately 300 pages of heretofore released documents.

The overwhelming majority of the documents are utterly useless, e.g., newspaper clippings, and the recounting City's staff derogatory comments to the EPA regarding the citizens that were complaining.

But there are a very few documents that some may find to be informative.

These informative documents, though redacted, could shed some light as to what the EPA's criminal investigation unit was considering.

227 - Notice EPA's handwritten note on the margin CLICK HERE
232 - EPA confirms City discharge into Gulf illegal CLICK HERE
251 - EPA orders that discharging must cease even after City PWD states permits issued CLICK HERE
306 - EPA "TROUBLED" about $10000 City paid lobbyist CLICK HERE
308 - EPA agent reports water plant records falsified CLICK HERE
309 - EPA reports City/FDEP backdate permits CLICK HERE
310 - EPA notes association between hydrogen sulfide discharge and lung illness CLICK HERE
318 - Marco Island violates the Federal Clean Water Act - permits or no permits, backdated or not, City violated federal law by discharging effluent dewatering into the Gulf CLICK HERE

These documents were redacted by the EPA and are produced herein as they were produced to us.

Under no circumstances does any party suggest that the EPA has complied with the now 1½ year old FOIA request. In fact, the EPA continues to refuse the release of their truly internal documents.

Hence the struggle continues.

Note: in the near future as bandwidth permits, all documents will be posted.

Polluting Secret - Proven True

As was correctly predicted by candidate Butch Neylon in November of 2007, the City has, and continues to contaminate the ground via leaking sewer pipes.

This fact was furthered validated by this week's report by the City. Proving once again that the present sewage system is contaminating the ground water far more than all of the septic tanks combined.

For those of you that missed Mr. Neylon's presentation or simply want to understand the why, here is the presentation with permission. (And for those of you in the syndicate, here is another opportunity to spew your vile, attack the person and make threats).

CLICK HERE FOR PRESENTATION

Despite this solid analysis, the "majority" chose to let the contamination continue.

Also, click here for an addendum just provided.

Enjoy.

Be Afraid ... Or Just Laugh

This from today's wire services:

Crist Calls for Grand Jury to Look Into Public Corruption

News Service of Florida - Oct 14th, 2009

Sparked by recent high-profile South Florida cases he said may be part of a “culture of corruption,” Gov. Charlie Crist called Wednesday for impaneling a statewide grand jury to investigate suspected criminal activity by public officials.

If this were to be a genuine transparent effort to investigate all aspects of municipal corruption, then the local syndicate should start thinking about moving back to Michigan.

However, when one considers that a former councilperson's partner was appointed to a statewide commission by Crist - and Crist's name was used repeatedly as having stated "Marco Island will get a sewer system whether they like it or not" - and Crist's FDEP is complicit in the environmental crimes on the island that no one (to date) has been prosecuted - does anyone really think that this grand jury will investigate Crist?

Just laugh.

CCC: Cistern, City, County

Open Email to Councilors Kiester and Recker:

hello councilors,

i have not been successful in working with the county or the county version of the dept. of health as i promised mr. kiester on thursday. long story.

regardless, i ask that the council abate city's $150 "cistern permit" fee, and somehow either work with the county so the county can either abate their $250 or $295 tax or the have the city reimburse the county tax to those residents that undergo a septic-cistern conversion.

please keep in mind that the city poisoned the well (no pun intended) when it came out with an absurdly specious cost to convert septic-to-cistern of $5,500 (its less than $500 in the florida keys), and the "number" was repeated ad nauseam without vetting. despite the transparent motivation, the statement and the surrounding turbulence guaranteed that we would not get the grant since many actually believed the "number" and thereby did not sign up for the grant - hence costing each of us the $750 grant rebate.

in summary, if the city council agrees to abate/refund the taxes, there is a trade off of $445 ($150 + $295) versus $750: still a net loss to the citizens.

the city and the county not taxing $445 to a "handful" of residents (per the staff's own words) is not going to break or make either the city or the county - but

• it will undo a wrong,
• promote conservation (as i proved to the staff, there is a per home savings of more like 900 gallons of water every 2-3 days),
• note that this is a conservation savings, and not necessarily a monetary savings
• prove that the city is genuinely environment-friendly,
• spur other cost-saving/environmentally sound ideas and initiatives,
• impel the local economy (contractors needed to do the conversions),
• further foster citizen-staff engineering initiatives.

communities throughout florida, especially the florida keys that is also highly sensitive to enviro-tourism/eco-tourism (and also under the auspices of the same state department of health) are aggressively encouraging these initiatives. i pray that the city council of marco island quickly do the same.


thank you,

Inexpensive Cistern Model Validated

With the support from Councilors Kiester and Recker, Mr. Joel and his staff met with this author, two interested citizens and two licensed contractors on Thursday October 8, 2009 to evaluate a novel idea for using septic tanks as cisterns.

Mr. Joel and his staff were professional, interested, positive and afforded many excellent suggestions and improvements to the model. After meeting for over an hour, they found the model to be a good idea with the details needing to be worked out. Subsequent to the meeting they provided many particular mechanical details that have proven immensely useful to go from model to working system.

This is the conceptual model presented, updated with suggestions from the City engineering staff: (click to enlarge) (note: this is NOT a mechanical model)

Two particulars as to valves (thanks to the City engineers) are:

Valve1 and Valve2

The two contractors are working to effectuate the model with the assistance of the City engineers and inspectors.

This approach and the wonderful cooperation and enthusiasm by all advances a genuine desire by the City and its citizens to actually put into practice the "green" movement, as opposed to simply talking about being "green".

Estimate
An estimate by this author to convert from septic to cistern using the above noted model is $1,000 PLUS governmental fees (see below in To Do).

Opinion
The salient issue for many of us is simply one of conservation in conjunction with maintaining our private property rights. Not having to buy approximately 900 gallons of water every two or three days, and preventing approximately 900 gallons of water every two or three days as runoff into the waterways or into the swales or into the sewer system – PER HOUSE – more than suffices the former. Not having to destroy private property (the septic tank) by governmental fiat sans compensation satisfies the latter. A palatable compromise it seems.

To Do
The City was not awarded the grant for cistern conversion due to the low number of residents that signed up for the grant. This is understandable given the $5,500 price tag proposed by the City and subsequently unquestioned by its devotees. An error by both the City and the citizens that accept everything at face value, and hopefully a lesson that is now past us.

But perhaps the City Council can make amends.

A special plea to the Marco Island City Council:

• Please revisit the idea of charging $150 for a cistern permit: eliminate it!
  
• Please request/insist that Collier County abate their $250 tax (cloaked as inspection fees)!
  

How can we be conservationists, be "green", protect our environment, if we are taxed to do so?

Does the City Council want the only factor in the island's economy to recover? If so, then help it recover by having the City purposefully act as an active and genuine promoter of environmental conservation that can be marketed.

Summary
The cistern model proposed herein is viable and inexpensive. The City likes it. Contractors need to flesh out the details and present the final mechanical plans to the City for approval. The City technical staff is professional, highly competent and very willing to help. The City Council needs to step up to the plate and lead by eliminating taxes that stifle conservation, environmentalism, their citizens and their economy.

Purpose for the FOIA Request to the EPA

The purpose of issuing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is to obtain information. Nothing more, nothing less.

Citizens have a right to know what information their government has, and why it does or does not do certain things. The FOIA was established for this expressed purpose.

Newspapers (real ones), citizens groups and even individuals routinely issue FOIA requests to all branches of government. The rules by which the information is supposed to be released are well documented in the federal statutes.

Extra emphasis on the citizens right to know via the FOIA mechanism was recently demonstrated by Attorney General Eric Holder's March 19, 2009 memorandum to the head of all federal agencies (which includes the EPA). In that directive, Attorney General Holder made it quite clear that federal agencies are to err on the side of openness and the citizens right to know when responding to FOIA requests.

The EPA was asked now fourteen months ago to produce whatever information they had regarding the well documented occurrences of toxic substances being used, dumped or otherwise introduced into the Marco Island environment. The EPA refused.

The EPA's refusal was appealed. The appellate decision was handed down just last month (see blog posting below). Any objective person reading that decision will learn that:

1. The EPA did find there was contamination of Marco Island
   
2. The EPA criminal division did investigate the contamination of Marco Island
   
3. The EPA did find the parties responsible for the contamination of Marco Island

Unfortunately, the decision handed down denied for the most part our request for the information. The curious reason cited is that by releasing the information, those responsible for the contamination will be embarrassed. Therefore proving our point: contamination occurred and the EPA knows who is responsible.

We ague that the citizens right to know the extent of the contamination and the extent of the remediation of that contamination (if any) far outweighs the "embarrassment" of those responsible.

We will see if our argument prevails.

Those who disagree with the right of the citizens seeking information from their government don't understand their form of government. Those besmirching the citizens exercising their FOIA rights have something to hide.

One would think that the City and its apologists would rejoice at this Don Quixotesque endeavour. For if the City and its apologists are certain that nothing bad occurred, that there was no contamination, that the City's "investigation" was genuine, then why get upset over a FOIA request? It will reveal nothing, right?

Or, are the predictable exposures by the "paper" of those its manipulators don't like, threats, hoary racial tropes, denigration, false denials and intimidation being made because there is something that is best kept buried?

We'll see.

EPA Fines for Sulfuric Acid Discharge

No, don't get your hopes up - not the polluters on Marco Island that discharged millions of gallons of effluent laced with hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid into the waterways. We'd only be so lucky.

Interestingly, today October 5, 2009 the EPA announced the fines against a company (in Florida, of course) for doing the exact same thing the City and their contractors did on Marco Island.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 5, 2009

Sulfuric Acid Manufacturer Agrees to Spend $30 Million to Resolve Clean Air Violations

WASHINGTON – Mosaic Fertilizer will spend approximately $30 million on air pollution controls that are expected to eliminate harmful emissions from sulfuric acid production plants in Uncle Sam, La., and Mulberry, Fla., the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced. The company will also pay a civil penalty of $2.4 million to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations.

Mosaic produces sulfuric acid and combines it with phosphate rock to produce phosphoric acid, which in turn is combined with ammonia to produce fertilizer. Sulfuric acid production results in emissions of sulfur dioxide.

High levels of sulfur dioxide cause respiratory problems and contribute to childhood asthma. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to acid rain, haze, and impairs visibility in national parks. Emissions from sulfuric acid plants can be carried significant distances downwind, causing air quality problems in nearby states.

So as to Marco Island, we were entreated the hydrogen sulfide gas covering entire neighborhoods.

If you still don't believe that there is no correlation with the City dumping millions of gallons of sulfuric acid effluent into the waterways and the release of the toxic hydrogen sulfide gas, read the EPA's own chemistry on this subject:

... Once released from the wastewater as hydrogen sulfide gas, odor and corrosion problems begin. Another type of bacteria utilizes hydrogen sulfide gas to produce sulfuric acid that causes the destruction of wastewater piping and facilities.

(click here for entire EPA chemistry report)


Question: so how is it that the City and its contractors (so far) have gotten away with no prosecution where others are being prosecuted for doing the exact same thing?

EPA’s Criminal Investigation – Done?

As we see from the most recent EPA communiqué, there was a criminal investigation of the City of Marco Island. This fact is not new to those of us that don't rely on the local race tip sheets for being informed as to what occurs in our community. The status of that investigation is closed. Again, nothing new to some of us.

What is new is the implication that the criminal investigation can be re-opened if there is additional information. And therein is the catch.

The few conscientious citizens on Marco Island have turned over everything we have; pictures, videos, first-hand accounts, city documents, etc. But what we don't know is what has been provided to the EPA by the perpetrators, accomplices and co-conspirators in these environmental crimes.

Hence, while the letter alludes to this blog's appeal being granted in part, the expectation that the EPA will actually uphold the country's environmental laws as they were violated on Marco Island by the city governance and its contractors with "additional information" is remote.

You would think that the public's right to know how their health and that of their environment has been affected by the well-documented exposure to several highly toxic contaminants would easily trump whatever pretext the EPA can come up with for refusing to release antyhing – especially since the criminal case is "closed".

You would think that if your government was 'For the People'.

The war continues.

(click on the image to enlarge)