The predatory litigious "Baykeeper" is at it again- only this time they got caught: Apparently, Pete Nichols don't need no stinkin' permits. But he'll sure sue the shit out of you if you didn't have one.
Baykeeper apparently "sidestepped regulatory agency procedures when it conducted a chemical dye test last week on Eureka’s Waterfront.
...Humboldt Baykeeper did not provide the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board the requested paperwork the agency needed to determine if a permit was necessary to conduct a fluorescent tracer test on the Balloon Track property.
...Humboldt Baykeeper didn’t comment on why it didn’t provide the Regional Water Board with the information it asked for.
Dave Evans,,, said the agency had not received a requested written description from Baykeeper on the specific testing to make a determination whether a permit would be required or if a waiver could be granted.
“We didn’t know what the purpose was because they didn’t submit the requested information,” Evans said.
Nichols stated only one drop of the non-toxic, biodegradable fluorescent dye was used by its consultants to trace the discharge."
BUT - "...An SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists employee representing SN’s Marina Center project was among the more than 20 people who were present for the testing and observed the approximately one liter dye solution being poured into the water.
...Brian Morrissey, senior vice president for Security National, said it is ironic that Baykeeper chose to ignore the Regional Water Board and didn’t obtain a required permit, which he said was the basis for the environmental group’s lawsuit against SN.
...In May 2007, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled to dismiss eight of the 11 Baykeeper’s charges in the lawsuit against Union Pacific and SN.
The remaining three claims from the lawsuit filed March last year, allege violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Clean Water Act, as well as a failure of the land owner to apply for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination permit for storm water discharge."
Word on the street is "Baykeeper" is complaining that they are being "picked on." That's rich. There's not much oversight of the predatory orgs - but the Water Board certainly has some rights to monitor them and they are apparently sidestepping even that basic procedure. There's big money in this for them - How can anyone trust them?
The trouble with these guys - who is to verify the accuracy of their tests? Their own labs? Who is to say if they follow proper procedure? Who monitors the chain of command of the samples they take? Who knows whether samples get spiked or not? Switched or not? Maybe someone should sue "Baykeeper."
But just as a side note - if no one owned the property, if it was sitting there in limbo - would the water still be running into the ditches? Who would care? How would "Baykeeper" make any money if there were no rich pockets to try to pick?