Wednesday, February 14, 2007

So...

Will Humboldt Moneykeepers get their way?

Dioxin listing for bay legit, says state

How much will Fredric Evenson and Pete Nichols stand to make if they do?

UPDATE:
Yes.
Dioxin listing a done deal
by Nathan Rushton, 2/21/2007

13 comments:

  1. They will make nothing. Why would they? There is no lawsuit.

    But the whole community will benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's the spin. This is just a nifty little "tool."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't they get grant funding from the Waterkeeper for the designation and therefore more to pay themselves and more toys to buy...just wondering.

    And aren't there bigger polluter in Hum bay?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Guess you need a paternity test. Are they the spawn of "the Ecological Rights Foundation" funded by lawsuit money, or are they the spawn of Waterkeeper?

    "...Humboldt Baykeepers also comes under the umbrella of the Ecological Rights Foundation...Fred Evanson, a board member of the foundation, is also volunteering his time with the Baykeepers, which he helped forge. ...The Garberville-based foundation also bought the Baykeepers' new 25-foot Boston Whaler..."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seems Rose is the only one "spinning" here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You missed your 3:30 check in, dear.

    What are you scared of?

    ReplyDelete
  7. pretty smart to get the baykeepers wife in as gags campaign manager, then he fires the environmental prosecutor and clears the way for her hubby to rake in the big bucks all by his lonesome don't u think?
    IMHO

    ReplyDelete
  8. FOLLOW the MONEY! Ecological Rights Foundation + Waterkeepers = Baykeepers. FOLLOW the MONEY! The Bay listing = money from mommy and daddy + uncle at the Coastal Commission will pave the way for unending grant money from the cousins at the coastal (con)-servancy. FOLLOW the MONEY! Don't forget all the new lawsuits and the Kennedy fundraisers. FOLLOW the MONEY! Al Gore, saw a rainbow today.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You should also throw out all old samples, and take all new ones, with authorized certified unbiased scientists. Separate labs should perform identical tests to prevent spiking. The contents of any test vials should follow a strict chain of command to ensure that the vial being tested and reported on is the same one that was taken from a Humboldt Bay location. Lack of scrutiny can no longer be tolerated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The contents of any test vials should follow a strict chain of command to ensure that the vial being tested and reported on is the same one that was taken from a Humboldt Bay location. Lack of scrutiny can no longer be tolerated."

    Awesome idea. It always bothered me that the Harbor District's contractor responsible for testing could be said to have a confilct of interest... he owns a dock and contracts to help dredging.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're going to have to discount all the samples taken by earnest kayakers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You don't trust the hired contractor's tests so you dummy some spiked samples to get your way. Then want to lecture on Morals,Ethics,Accountability. Singing cum-bi-ya all the way to the bank. All testing must be verified at all times. PREIOD!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The four-member State Water Board patiently listened to the rehashing of arguments its staff had already rejected and addressed at length in an eight-page response letter to the environmental consultant Geomatrix, which was hired ( for $17,000) by the Harbor District earlier this month to petition the listing.

    Geomatrix Principal Geologist Edward Conti told the board that removing Humboldt Bay from the list would allow a more “technically and procedurally acceptable” process, which he said would instill confidence in the public that it was inclusive and transparent.

    State Water Board member Arthur Baggett said he could reconsider the listing if there were any major errors of law or fact.

    “I don’t see that,” Baggett said.

    An EPA representative confirmed for the State Water Board that the state had complied with the legal requirements for the listing and that the federal agency had already approved the state’s recommendation for the listing in November.

    As well as not budging on reconsidering the listing, State Water Board staff told the board that delisting Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin would require “a higher level of proof.”

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.