Because nothing says "Kennedy clout" like chaining yourself to the White House fence.

Because nothing says "Kennedy clout" like chaining yourself to the White House fence.

— RB (@RBPundit) February 13, 2013

◼ Pete Nichols at White House Direct Action Protest - Lost Coast Outpost

The Peter Principle

◼ Baykeeper Pete expands his territory

Gallegos chief cheerleader writes another Rackauckas-like letter to the editor

◼ Responsible stewardship of the environment - TS LTE

The comments thread is better than the letter:
Curmudgeon Right ON! WE cannot count on the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Fish and Game, the US EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Servic,e the Loooooooong list of enforcement agencies that cover things like leaking petroleum tnaks, we've got to have our MIGHTY DA protect us.

MEanwhile tweakers go free, you get a slap on the wrist for killing kids while drunk driving. What a crock. If we needed a DA to ignore the issues screwing up our daily lives and wanted a DA to focus on the nebulous feel good prosecution of profit-driven business...that's what we've got!

deBunker The writer maybe thinks that Gallegos invented environmental prosecution? Look back in the TS archives and in the legal records and you will find otherwise.
Handy of the Occasional DA to find a case that he can use for his campaign to keep the high-paying job that he sometimes shows up for. Who did the work?

Fisherman And how much did you make off the deal Mr. Baykeeper???

Cletus Van Damme And those damned gas tanks keep robbing liquor stores, molesting children, and stealing everything that isn't bolted down. They sell drugs too! I'm so glad our knight in green armor is the DA! And it's good to know that such an objective person such as Mr Nichols wrote a letter to support him! Right about election time! What a coincidence, eh Pete?

Bunch of effin' crooks.

anonymous
The state attorney general investigated this and filed the complaint. They also prepared the judgment. Gags just took credit for it. Check it out for yourselves. Go to the court clerk and look at the file. Its clear as a bell. Gallegos is up to his same tricks of taking credit for work he didn't do. Right up there with plagiarizing.

And Paykeeper is involved!

Pete Malloy
Pete Nichols ? ha ha ha ha ha, what a chump

DIRT DEVIL
Oh here's Petey spouting off again just to get his and Paykeepers name in the light. Are you getting a good deal from Paul on your next lawsuit against a real business or developer who wants to invest in our county's future. I'm surprised you had the time to write a letter while also being a marine biology expert. It does not surprise me you would extol the virtues of our esteemed DA since you are both masters of taking credit for something you had so little to do with. Maybe if our DA would spend as much time really prosecuting ALL CRIMINALS as he does breaking his arm to pat himself on the back we could have a much better place to live.

anonymous
Looks like this backfired for Paul and Pete. Now will the reporters pick this up?

P Nutgallery
Geez, Pete, letting the government hoard in on your business? Coffers must be full to share in the litigation bonanza. Hey, does WaterKeeper have a Louisiana branch office? There'll be someone to cash in on the disaster there I'm sure. But will they do anything to actually clean the environment? Track record says no. Despite the recent appearances (advertising) by Kennedy. There is more money in filing suit than performing cleanups (and stalling them for that matter). Cha-chinge, cha-chinge!$$$$$ Happy Earth Day $$$$

Drivel
BayWatch is a fine law office.

anonymous
So its a law office? Interesting.

reasonable
Nice work by Gallegos, AND everyone else who made this case. Companies don't agree to 1.1 million dollar settlements for no reason, Paul must have caught them red-handed.

As far as all the complaints on this thread that somehow this case means that violent criminals, robbers, burglars and so on are not being prosectuted aggressively, well that's pure BS. The fact is that violent crime is DOWN in Humbolt County, and Gallegos deserves at least some of the credit for that.

DIRT DEVIL
reasonable wrote:
Nice work by Gallegos, AND everyone else who made this case. Companies don't agree to 1.1 million dollar settlements for no reason, Paul must have caught them red-handed.
As far as all the complaints on this thread that somehow this case means that violent criminals, robbers, burglars and so on are not being prosectuted aggressively, well that's pure BS. The fact is that violent crime is DOWN in Humbolt County, and Gallegos deserves at least some of the credit for that.

No one is denying that the fine is not justified but the insult is that PG is taking credit for it. The AG did all the work and dropped it in his lap. He probably would not have found the problem himself up at the beach while surfing with his "friend"

peabody
so who got the 1.1 mil fine?

DIRT DEVIL
peabody wrote:
so who got the 1.1 mil fine?
Big Oil & Tire were fined for multiple violations according to reports. Now how many of those violations were really connected to a real threat to ground water I don't know. I know that fines are imposed for matters such as lack of paperwork and other clerical errors so not all may have been for problem tanks. The county is famous for going after minor offenders so the environmental health dept can justify their large staff. Stop by 100 H St.in Eureka and find out just how many people are really working. It is probably overstaffed and bloated just like all govt agencies we have to support.

anonymous
The county didn't go after big oil. The state did which is why the state did the investgation and filed the complaint. Its also why the state gets the fine. Paul did nothing more than cross out the name of the state attorney who prepared the judgment and hand wrote his own to take credit.

◼ Gallegos Gets Props, Again - The Reporta

The Paykeeper candidate for 5th District announces

◼ Cleary announces bid for 5th District supervisorial race

The sad thing in this race is he might actually make a good Supervisor. He'll certainly be a good candidate. But he is surrounded by some of the worst people for this County. The kind who want something in return for their support.

In other Paykeeper News, The Journal reports:
◼ Nichols Out, Glass In as NEC Prez
Glass said the power transition took place last night. It will be his third stint as president of the board for the Arcata environmental institution but his first since being elected to Eureka City Council. Glass said he doesn’t foresee any conflicts of interest arising from his dual roles, especially since the nec dropped out of a lawsuit challenging the environmental impact report for the proposed Balloon Track project on Eureka’s waterfront.... and Glass said pulling the agency (NEC) out of debt took some drastic measures, many of which weren’t especially popular with members and supporters....

◼ Local Political Crazyness! Samoa Softball

Show us where the money comes from...

Paykeeper Pete Nichols knows how to use free media to spread his lies message. During Gallegos' election, he and his wife put out the meme that Humboldt County's CAST team was just like big city Los Angeles' team. Remember the letters and quotes of the lovely, missing in action Kay Rackauckus? His willingness to twist the truth there ought to tell you everything you need to know about the man. But he uses free My Word's, free airtime on radio stations to spread his propaganda. He uses it to paint a nice benevolent facade for his predatory litigious org. It works in other areas.

More and more, as scrutiny is applied to him and his activities, the truth is coming out. Today's response to Sneaky Pete's My Word is very interesting...

◼ Humboldt Baykeeper should come clean about the Marina Center
For many years, Humboldt Baykeeper has been saying that the Balloon Track should be cleaned up. But now that the cleanup is about to happen, Baykeeper is demanding that the Balloon Track should not be cleaned up until more unspecified work is done at some unspecified time in the future. Why has Baykeeper suddenly changed its tune?

Last week in this column, Baykeeper wrote that it wanted to “clear the air” about its opposition to the cleanup. We think that's a step in the right direction, but Baykeeper has not gone far enough.

Baykeeper may have given the impression that it opposes the cleanup because of the goodness of its heart, but Internal Revenue Service records show that some unidentified people have paid Humboldt Baykeeper nearly $2 million over the past few years, and that Baykeeper has paid lawyers and experts hundreds of thousands of dollars. This big money did not come from member dues, which in 2008 were only $16,000 -- not enough to pay even the salary of Pete Nichols.

Humboldt Baykeeper and its parent organization, known as Ecological Rights Foundation, should come clean. The public is entitled to know who is paying for Baykeeper's fight, and whether those people just happen to be wealthy businesses who don't want any competition from the Marina Center.

Baykeeper argues that “Security National is attempting to slip through a sham cleanup.” But when Baykeeper is pressed about what is wrong with the cleanup, the group has only vague responses.

The main objection, according to Baykeeper, is that the property has not been “fully characterized.” But the proposed cleanup is an interim cleanup, which is a cleanup done before all relevant data has been collected and before decisions have been made on final cleanup plans. Interim cleanups are performed when there is an obvious issue that can be resolved without waiting until the end of a long process. Here, dioxin has been found in ditch sediments. CUE VI will have those ditch sediments excavated, removed from the property, and properly disposed of. How can anyone object to that?

Someone may wonder how CUE VI knows when to stop digging. In this kind of excavation, the contractor starts by digging out a reasonable amount. In this case, the initial excavation areas were identified in the consultant's proposal to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and were approved.

When the initial excavation is complete, the consultant takes samples from the excavated area, has those analyzed by a laboratory, and submits the results to the Regional Board for discussion on whether more dirt should be excavated. The excavation is complete only when the confirmation samples are satisfactory to the Regional Board.

Baykeeper sometimes takes credit for the cleanup of the Simpson Mill site at the foot of Del Norte Street. That site was used for penta treatment, and penta contains dioxin. The levels of dioxin at that site were many, many thousands of times higher than those at the Balloon Track, which was never used for penta treatment.

Baykeeper likes to talk about how many samples were taken at the Simpson site. But it does not talk about the levels of dioxin at the two sites. At the Balloon Track, CUE VI will be excavating soils with relatively low levels of dioxin. At the Simpson site, soils containing higher levels of dioxins will be capped and left in place with Baykeeper's blessing.

In the end, what counts is the quality of the cleanup. The cleanup of the Balloon Track goes beyond what is required by regulatory agencies and what has been accomplished at other sites.

If the cleanup plan is so bad, why hasn't Baykeeper brought in one of its experts to explain what is wrong with it? Baykeeper has hired many experts for the Balloon Track litigation. Not one of these experts has appeared before the City Council, and not one of these experts submitted any report about the cleanup to the Regional Board. This lack of technical expertise may explain why Baykeeper's arguments are so vague.

Baykeeper had an opportunity to convince the Regional Board that the cleanup was inadequate, but the only technical objections Baykeeper made to the proposed cleanup were in a letter from Baykeeper's lawyer.

Not surprisingly, the Regional Board was not persuaded by any of Baykeeper's objections. In mid-October, the Regional Board concluded that the cleanup should be implemented as proposed.

Humboldt Baykeeper should therefore come clean about what is really going on. Like anyone else, it is entitled to have its opinion about whether the Marina Center is good for the community. But if it is opposing cleanup because opponents of the Marina Center will do anything to delay that project, and if Baykeeper is receiving large amounts of money from project opponents, Baykeeper should not be hiding that information. The public has a right to know.

Randy Gans is a vice president of Security National Properties.

The implication that Pierson is also helping fund "Paykeeper" is certainly there. Wonder if it is merely a donation, or if there is a contractual arrangement. 'Bout time we did find out.

◼ Gans throws down on Nichols in today’s Times-Standard The Mirror

$16,000 in member donations sure doesn't pay for the fancy boat (Boston Whaler), the nice Old Town storefront office, the line of T-shirts, the nice signage, and all the concerts and fundraisers, much less Sneaky-Pete's salary, at least one attorney on staff, the scientific tests, and all that.

While legitimate business people in Old Town struggle to afford the rent, these bloodsucking incestuous activist groups rake in the big bucks.

Sneaky Paykeeper Pete's My Word: ◼ Clearing the air
It is time to clear the air of the confusion around the environmental community's apparent lack of desire to see Eureka's Balloon Track property cleaned up. Let me be clear, Humboldt Baykeeper, and other environmental groups, want nothing more than to have the Balloon Track cleaned up to the fullest extent for the health of our bay and community. Period. In fact, Humboldt Baykeeper has worked longer and put more time into getting that property truly cleaned up than anyone else.

At the heart of the issue is the Supplemental Remedial Action Plan (SIRAP) put forth by Security National (CUE VI) -- a plan which will not accomplish the goal of clean-up of the Balloon Track. Security National is attempting to slip through a sham cleanup for the Balloon Track, skirting applicable environmental laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act, and the city of Eureka appears to be assisting them in this attempt. It is highly unlikely that these actions will pass muster with the California Coastal Commission, which will be the next governmental body to weigh in on this matter.

The city of Eureka has had many opportunities over the past 20 years to take on Union Pacific over the contamination at the Balloon Track, but the city never had the intestinal fortitude to follow through with any action. Nearly four years ago, Humboldt Baykeeper alone stood-up and took on Union Pacific with a lawsuit, enforcing federal environmental laws, to force them to clean-up the Balloon Track so it could be redeveloped and utilized by the community as it is zoned, for “public use.”

Security National has since purchased the property, inheriting the lawsuit along with it, and now has essentially legally and financially shielded Union Pacific from any liability for clean-up. It is important to note that the decision to purchase this property was made knowing full well that the property is contaminated, and Security National is now a responsible party for the cleanup. Humboldt Baykeeper has every intention of holding Security National, as well as Union Pacific, responsible for a full characterization and clean-up of the property.

It has always been the contention of Humboldt Baykeeper that Security National can build whatever they like on the Balloon Track site as long it is fully characterized and cleaned up, and as long as they comply with all provisions of the law. What Security National cannot do is sidestep the law and public process to ram through piecemeal actions on their way to an inadequate cleanup in an effort to achieve their end goal.

The greenwashing of their project with pleas to “just let us get started” to cleanup the property is a transparent tactic. Humboldt Baykeeper has been asking Security National to do just that for years and we would step aside tomorrow if Security National would really do the right thing for the environment: fully characterize and cleanup the Balloon Track. It is truly that easy.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a cloud of influence that hangs darkly over the city of Eureka. I find it disturbing that the city has agreed to a generous “indemnification” agreement with Security National for any legal liability regarding the Marina Center project. This essentially hands the keys to the city of Eureka over to Security National regarding all things Marina Center.

This is unfortunate. The city of Eureka as lead agency for this project is charged by state law with requiring that environmental review of the project meets all of the requirements of CEQA. If Councilman Leonard, and others, truly believes that the FEIR they certified to under CEQA is one of the best he has ever seen, then why not be bold enough to defend it? Isn't that why they are elected in the first place?

Instead, Mr. Leonard and the council voted to certify what they know is an inadequate FEIR and then pleaded with environmental groups to “cease fire” on lawsuits for six months. If Mr. Leonard had as much of a grasp on CEQA as he proclaims, he would know that an individual or organization has only 30 days to legally challenge a project under CEQA.

If the City Council truly wanted a 6-month cease fire, they should have recirculated the FEIR and repaired the major flaws in the document as was repeatedly recommended by Baykeeper and others. The city had plenty of time to consider the ramifications of their action and will most certainly be informed by the courts that their environmental review of the Marina Center is woefully inadequate and incomplete.

Humboldt Baykeeper will continue to demand full characterization and cleanup of the Balloon Track. We have every intention of completing what we started four years ago for the health of the bay and the community. I am more than happy to talk with anyone about our actions and Humboldt Baykeeper's work to cleanup the property. I can be reached at 268-0664.
Pete Nichols is the executive director of Baykeeper.

Truer words

◼ Eureka approves Marina Center coastal development permit
Councilman Frank Jager said he is in favor of the first phase of the project because his constituents are.
A majority of the public speakers who turned out at a series of meetings regarding the project's environmental impact report, or EIR, and the permit supported moving forward with the Marina Center development, citing the creation of jobs and saying a cleanup of the site is long overdue.

”We as a council owe them that -- to get it moving,” Jager said. “I'm not intimidated by Humboldt Baykeeper, or EPIC, or any of those environmental groups. They're extortionists.”

Sheep's Clothing

Why has John Ash removed the predatory litigious Baykeeper, Pete Nichols, from his endorsement list?

Is it because Nichols has revoked his support and thrown it behind Susan Penn? Or is it because Ash, like the other "Progressives" has to hide who he really is in order to get elected?

Here's how the list used to read...

Gay Morris
Jim Morrison
Bonnie Neely, Humboldt County Supervisor
Pete Nichols
Troy Nicolini...

Here's how it reads today...

Gay Morrison
Jim Morrison
Bonnie Neely, Humboldt County Supervisor
Troy Nicolini

The Predatory Litigious Orgs are at it again

Trying to stop the railroad. After killing off the Timber Industry, this is job one.

Hank has the story: Another Bite at NCRA
...Earlier today, three Humboldt County environmental organizations — the Friends of the Eel, Humboldt Baykeeper, and the Environmental Protection Information Center — sent the NCRA a letter demanding that the agency reverse its decision to mortgage land in the City of Ukiah to pay off Novato....

Naughty or Nice
and the letter...

Cap has it - and all things railroad related... NCJ: HUMBOLDT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS THREATEN TO SUE NCRA ABOUT BROWN ACT AND MORTGAGE OF UKIAH PROPERTY.

He asks So, why is it the Humboldt groups, and not Ukiah, etc doing it?

Damn good question!

Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor?

It's good to see this topic FINALLY get some press. The predatory litigious orgs, the phony groups with Orwellian names, spawning new attack "projects," operating under the pretense of being a "grassroots" citizen effort when they are really extortion machines made up of teams of lawyers (Ecological Rights Foundation bragged that it has 17 lawyers on staff.) First reported here, and finally being recognized for what they are.

Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor? (not online)

Last week the board of harbor commissioners voted to proceed with the Humboldt Bay harbor plan developed by its consultants. This would begin with a modest break-bulk and short sea-haul terminal that also could accommodate occasional cruise ship stops. Later, if and when railroad service is available, the facility would expand to a container port. All of this would represent a boon of varying proportions to Humboldt County's economy.

We say "would" because there exists the possibility that one of a group of litigious no-growth lawyers may try to sue to stop harbor development. The Ecological Rights Foundation, its Baykeepers subsidiary, the Mateel Environmental Justice Center and the California Alternatives to Toxics make up a sort of federation. All have been plaintiffs in suits whose ostensible purpose has been to abate environmental pollution. On examining the cases, however, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that all of them have two objectives: 1.) getting settlements for large sums of money (which can fund additional legal attacks) and 2.) thwarting economic development. It adds up to killing jobs in Humboldt County's fragile economy.

The most recent example is the suit brought by Baykeepers/Ecological Rights Foundation against the past and present owners of Eureka's Balloon Track-- Union Pacific Railroad and CUE VI, respectively, and the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA)-- on the grounds that polluted water is emanating from the property into the bay. The property is already under a clean-up and abatement order, with which the owners are complying. One wonders, therefore, whether the real purpose of the suit is to discourage the owners from completing efforts to build the Marina Center.

The Ecological Rights Foundation and its confederates have a record of going after companies with deep pockets, and have charged them with having contaminated various sites. Among these have been Simpson, Sierra Pacific and Evergreen Pulp. Baykeepers, for its part, has consistently opposed any activity on the bay that would create new jobs and stimulate economic activity. They have opposed potential rail development, dredging of shipping lanes and the hiring by the harbor district of an experienced port expert to help it find users for a new port.

A modern harbor facility, developed with care in two stages as conditions warrant, is the one sure way Humboldt county can create a source of meaningful new jobs. This, is turn, can lead to increased family formations by yong people, home purchases, a reversal of the declining school population, improved retail sales and thsu the revenues that sustain our cities. Why, then, don't the lawsuit-happy lawyers of these supposed "environmental" groups stop attempting to prevent port development? The only answer we can think of is they desire a shrinking economy.
The Eureka Reporter Opinion page of the Times-Standard - Sunday, November 23, 2008
Peter Hannaford Editorial Page Editor

Related:
"Baykeeper" - LawsuitsRus
Incestous Activist groups
The "projects"
How much do they want?
In case you missed it...
Do as I say, not as I do
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION (ERF)'S HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER PROJECT...

Here's a question

the big money Foundations get their money from Corporations.

If your group is funded by those big Foundations, you are supported by (laundered) Corporate money.

Right?

Just askin'

It is ILLEGAL to commercially sell Sport-Caught Salmon, right? Non-profits have to buy the fish they serve at local fundraisers, by law. Does Pete Nichols/Baykeeper have a Commercial Fishing License? How about a sales license? How does this work exactly? And, will the DA prosecute his campaign manager's husband?
***
From: pete@humboldtbaykeeper.org
Save the Date: 2008 Birthday Bash
Join us for our third annual benefit dinner and dance on Friday, September 26 at the Arcata Community Center. We're aiming for yet another incredible night of dining, dancing, and celebrating our coastal waters with the people who make Bay protection come to life - that means YOU!

This year's event will feature Alaskan Copper River salmon, personally caught (gill netted?) by Baykeeper director Pete Nichols - a fabulous silent auction and benefit drawing with incredible prizes - the third annual Waterkeeper of the Year award presentation - dancing to the sounds of the West African Highlife Band - and much more!

Menu by Hurricane Kate's will delight you with:

Salmon - fresh-caught from Alaska's Copper River;
Beef - last year's offering was sirloin steak; or
Vegetarian - last year's offering was African chickpea and sweet-potato stew
(Check back soon for full menu)

Download a ticket order form at right to purchase tickets for dinner by September 22. Music tickets are available in advance or at the door ($15-$25, sliding scale.)

***************************************************
Pete Nichols, Executive Director
Humboldt Baykeeper
***
Related info:
About Copper River Salmon - Hundreds of fishermen try their luck, flooding the local Alaskan fishing town of Cordova in a "salmon rush" frenzy. The 500 some gill-netters fish the 35-mile wide Copper River Delta (mouth) where depth and sandbars change yearly. The rushing waters of the Copper River empty steeply from the mountains above while breakers pound in from the ocean. Parralled with unpredictable weather and tides makes fishing the "Flats" of the Copper River a bit dangerous at times. But the catch is well worth it.
admin.adfg.state.ak.us/license/prices.html
***
Federal Wildlife Laws - Lacey Act
Lacey Act Amendments of 1981

Rumor is

The predatory litigious "Humboldt Baykeeper" is going after Sun Valley Bulb Farms.

Will they get go-away money? Or will Sun Valley stand up to the extortionists?

Wow!

Humboldt "Baykeeper" has a STAFF ATTORNEY!

Michelle Smith, Staff Attorney
707.268.0665
michelle AT humboldtbaykeeper.org

Moneykeeping must be paying off.

So-o-o-o ya gonna cancel the "Un-Dam the Klamath Benefit Dinner?"

Now that the Northcoast Environmental Center has rejected the Klamath River Restoration Agreement (ie: dam removal) it seems a bit ummm, hypocritical to go forward with this event - or maybe 'revealing' is a better word - It seems that even though they had a seat at the negotiating table and were part of crafting the agreement, they are now reneging in order to preserve their cash cow, the right to predatory litigation. (worth millions - they don't need your $15 donation).

Speaking out of both sides of their mouth, they say Help support the movement to bring down the Klamath River dams by attending this Klamath Benefit Dinner at the Bayside Grange in Arcata on March 14, 7 p.m. The fundraiser is a Klamath Riverkeeper event, co-sponsored by the Northcoast Environmental Center, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources and Humboldt Baykeeper. and on the other hand spit on the agreement they helped craft.

Isn't it nice? All the predatory litigants in one nice little package.

Lesson for any future negotiators - there is no point in inviting these guys (the environmental orgs) to the table, no point in soliciting their input, and no reason to trust them whatsoever. The Headwaters Deal tells you that. This latest action tells you that.

It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth

The moneygrubbing "Baykeeper" has a new "Keeper" friend - and they want MORE money from you - taken the usual way, through a folksy concert, so that you won't feel the hands in your pocket...

Un-Dam the Klamath Benefit Dinner
followed by live reggae and funk
at the Bayside Grange
sponsored by "Klamath Riverkeeper" the Karuk Tribe and the predatory litigious "Humboldt Baykeeper"

Why? To help pressure Pacificorp and Warren Buffet to remove the dams on the Klamath River,

Does this mean the "Baykeeper"/ NEC is going to support the Klamath Restoration Agreement after all?

Didn't think so. They want to preserve their right to sue. (BIG money in that.)

Besides that, since they have access to millions in Foundation grant money, do they really need your money?

"Baykeeper"/NEC propaganda radio

Recommended reading: Arcata Eye Editorial

In an editorial recapping the flouride related rhetoric that inflamed passions in the recent election, Kevin Hoover points out that:

"KHSU 90.5 FM’s The Econews Report only gave one side – that fluoride impacts the environment, or so the opponents believe. I asked Humboldt Baykeeper’s Pete Nichols, the host, why he didn’t present other perspectives.

He said, “Since I only do one Econews per month, I didn’t have time to schedule the pro-fluoride for an interview. Perhaps not so fair and balanced, but given that fluoride does have impacts on the environment, and Econews is an environment show, it seemed appropriate to investigate that aspect.”

The “investigation” consisted of the familar anti-fluoride presentation – selectively mined factoids and speculation, this time presented without rebuttal. An informed individual with a different view could have easily put this misleading information in proper context.

I asked Nichols if there was any thought given to having people who believe there is no environmental impact on the same show.

He said he “considered it, but felt 30 minutes was too limiting to get both perspectives fully. I decided to investigate the potential harm to human health and the environment from fluoride exposure since it has been the minority view for decades.”

Fluoride opposition wasn’t the minority view on KHSU’s centerpiece environmental program – it was the only view, during election season with a big vote coming up."

Kevin points out that he, himself hosts Humboldt Review "a public affairs show on KHUM FM 104.3, and our middle segment is about a half-hour long. We routinely have three, four, five or even more guests on in that period so as to ensure fair access for all viewpoints."

Busted, Pete. Fair and balanced, "Baykeeper"/Northcoast Environmental Center is not. "Baykeeper" also has another show called Coastal Currents, same deal.

Another big suit

has reportedly had 8 out of 11 counts thrown out so far.

And I keep hearing about depositions in that case. Has "heraldo" been deposed?

My, my...

Guidestar it!

YOUR SEARCH
Keywords - Humboldt Baykeeper

What comes up?
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Garberville, CA 95542

"ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION (ERF)'S HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER PROJECT HAS EXPANDED ITS BASE OF SUPPORTING MEMBERS, HAS FURTHERED ITS PROGRAM OF OUTREACH AND EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOLS AND ON HUMBOLDT BAY, ERF HAS IMPLEMENTED A VERY SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN AND AROUND THE BAY. HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED ITS FIRST TWO BI-ANNUAL MAGAZINES."

(GuideStar's mission is to revolutionize philanthropy and nonprofit practice by providing information that advances transparency, enables users to make better decisions, and encourages charitable giving.)

Who is paying for "Baykeeper's" lawyer?

Who pays for the lawyer? How many lawyers? Who pays the rent on the "shop" in Old Town? Who pays for all the fancy collateral - the signs for the slough, the T-shirts, the handouts, the website? Who pays Pete Sterling-Nichols' salary? How many others are paid?

Many business owners struggle here - many have a hard time paying the rent of those Old Town shops, many cannot afford expensive logo and collateral design, many fishermen struggle, yet the "Baykeeper" has a new Boston Whaler, and a seemingly endless supply of money.

WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM? Who pays for this?
"HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER, et al.,"

Layne Friedrich (Bar No. 195431)
Drevet Hunt (Bar No. 240487)
Lawyers for Clean Water, Inc.
1004 O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, California 94129
Telephone: (415) 440-6520
Facsimile: (415) 440-4155
Email: layne@lawyersforcleanwater.com

Michelle Smith (Bar No. 233515)
Humboldt Baykeeper
422 First Street Suite G
Eureka, CA 95501
Telephone: (707) 268-0665
Facsimile: (707) 268-8901
Email: michelle@humboldtbaykeeper.org

Fredric Evenson (Bar No. 198059)
Law Offices of Fredric Evenson
William Verick (Bar No. 140972)
Klamath Environmental Law Center
424 First Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Telephone: (707) 268-8900
Facsimile: (707) 268-8901
Email: ecorights@earthlink.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER and ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION

Who is paying her? Where is the money coming from? "Baykeeper" dues?

My, my... Guidestar it!

Do as I say, not as I do

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?