Eco Extortion and threat to boatyards on Puget Sound

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Folks, it seems to me that this thread is getting away from the basic rule of the CBrats... And that is:

No Rules - Just be nice!

Let's keep the name calling out of the thread and talk about the facts. If you think PSA is up to no good, then perhaps as Robbi suggested, find out a bit more about them.

 

[ffheap]

Folks,

The problem is the whole legal system. It is controlled by the Lawyers and their friends the Judges. The laws are made by Lawyers in our government.

Years ago, I had a problem with a tenant who accused me of Assault. During the time in court when I was having her Legally thrown out of the Apartment, and after the Court Magistrate had determined that I had not assaulted the tenant, her Court Appointed Attorney went up to my Lawyer and said "If I have reason to believe that Mr. Heap Assaulted my client, would you be willing to settle out of court?" My answer was that it was extortion. Seams that it wasn't bcause the Attorney was the one who asked the question. If the former tenant had said the same thing, it would have been.

It's the Legal System designed to extract money from "deep pockets" and give to the "shallow pockets."

Good luck to the boat yards. It will become an extinct industry. Thank god that our 22' C-Dory's are trailable.

Fred

 

[localboy]

If I offended anyone with the "nazi" reference I apologize. I'll refrain from such blatant labeling in the future.

That said, the "enviromental movement" has it's hand up the posterior of nearly every politician in the greater Western Wa./Puget Sound area. This thread just eluminates another example of their tactics; get their way, no matter the cost.

Anyone interested can read about this gem: http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits/codes/CAO.aspx#ordinances

The "Critical Areas Ordinance". Basically, big gov't, with the backing of the "enviromental movement", telling rural landowners what the can and cannot do with/on their own land. Of course this doesn't stop the gov't from collecting property taxes on that same land; the same land the landowner has no control over any more. Sorry, but that is just wrong.

Same with this; attorneys (sorry, Pat) quazi-blackmailing businesses all in the name of the environment. It's not about the environment; if it was perhaps it wouldn't be riling so many feathers here.

Aloha....

 

[Robbi]

Sorry Mark, but I think you are just wrong in the case of PSA and the 5 marine yards that were named in this action. (I think we would all do well not to mix apples and oranges here.) Of the 5 yards, 4 remain, as one has been working to make changes in their practices so PSA waived the penalty part in good faith.
This action has to do with copper levels that are discharged into Puget Sound and I assume Lk Washington, Union, Portage Bay and the Ship Canal. Copper at levels in the range of I think 30 to 60 ppb can kill salmon. The yards involved have not met the benchmarks for discharge for at least 6 recording times, and more importantly they have failed to make plans to remedy their situations. These plans were at least 2 years past due. This is the Acquired Adaptive Management Plan. These include using sanders with vacuum attachments, putting tarps around the area of work, and cleaning up the working area at the end of each work day. Some of these yards have records of discharge of over 7000 ppb of copper, one yard came in over 1300 ppb for lead. The yards have known since 2005 that these benchmarks would be in place.
Of all of the industries on Puget Sound, non come even close to the discharge numbers for copper that boat yards do. This information is public record and can be found on the DOE web site.
One of the other sources of high concentrations of copper is in storm water drains. Car brake pads contribute most of this copper. Street run off in the Seattle area can measure in the 30 to 60 ppb range. Puget Sound Partnership is working with others (including PSA) to try and find a solution to this problem. I suspect that copper will be phased out of brake pads over time.

Richard Smith and Noel Lowney are attorneys that PSA uses but are not the only ones used. They are in no way associated with PSA. PSA is an all volunteer board with one attorney as a member. Many of the others are from business.

PSA is about the environment.

Robbi

 

[Pat Anderson]

Good question. Rana Verde Chris is probably our resident expert on this topic, and perhaps he will chime in, but I will give my perspective. DMRs are not voluntary, they are mandatory. It is a crime to falsify a DMR. It certainly is grounds to revoke an operator's license. DMRs report the results of lab analysis, and it is required to keep records of the analyses. At least in wastewater treatment plants, multiple people are involved in the process, so it would take a conspiracy to falsify DMRs. Most operators I know are very conscientious and would not consider falsifying a DMR. The consequences of not reporting permit violations and being found out are more severe than reporting the violations, and it seems the chances of being found out are pretty good.

Thanks for that explanation, Pat. What keeps operators honest in their DMR reporting? Seems like there would be a huge incentive to not report a violation.

Warren

 

[dotnmarty]

Exactly what I was thinking reading Pat's explanation. the State DOE doesn't have the ability/resources to monitor said reporting,

Are you advocating for more taxes so the DOE will have the "ability/resources"? Just askin'.

 

[lloyds]

And Robbi touches on an area that is just as volatile, and that is roadways, highways. During the years I worked in transportation in the seattle area the manual was formulated for the detention and treatment of runoff. Look at your interchanges and medians. The ponds and swales you see among other things are attempts at curing some of the heavy metals runoff problems. Auto manufacturers and parts manufacturers are already under the sword to produce products that don't spin off heavy metals. When I moved back to oregon to take a position with the DOT I warned them about the manual and what it would mean to the cost and complexity of projects and now we too have adopted the manual. I am not against cleaning this stuff up, but I also have to accept that it will come at a huge cost. The costs are going through the roof, projects are being cancelled or delayed for more funding. And the worst part is that even if your local jurisdictions and DOT have local and federal funding, they don't fund for the maintenance these improvements will require to be effective. There are places in King County where there are 10' X 200' metal vaults under the roads, with manhole lid access. These things have to be opened up every year and cleaned out. Who will pay for all that. There has to be a balance here someplace but I don't think we are getting there yet.

 

[localboy]

Exactly what I was thinking reading Pat's explanation. the State DOE doesn't have the ability/resources to monitor said reporting,

Are you advocating for more taxes so the DOE will have the "ability/resources"? Just askin'.

Puleeez. The State has MORE than enough "funding" to get it done. It's just prioritized incorrectly. But I digress and this is NOT a tax debate. :wink

I am not against the environment. To do so would be cutting my own throat in the long run, yes? :idea: This is common sense. I want my g-dauther and soon to be born g-son, to inherit a planet they can enjoy.

However, it is about balance as Lloyds mentioned above. Any entity, whatever they suport, that espouses radical, borderline militant ideas, to promote their agenda is wrong and dangerous and in the long run, costs us all a lot. And when those same entities go all the way to the bank feeling they did something "positive" and altruistic it's hypocritical since the funding has not gone to solving the problem; it's just lining someone's pocket.

I sincerely hope Robbi's information is correct and this organization is TRULY altruistic and allows the "funding" to go to the problem being SOLVED and not to some other radical environmental organization. To allow so would do nothing about the REAL ISSUE.

Aloha....again. :beer

 

[Da Nag]

My admittedly ignorant impressions on this issue - there's far more right about what's going on, than wrong. Here's my insanely simple and high level analysis, based on my limited readings.

Let's start with the problem all of this is attempting to address - nasty contaminant runoff into the waters we all enjoy. Nobody in their right mind, can suggest such activity should be unfettered, with no monitoring or controls in place. To what extent, is certainly open to scientific debate - but when talking of heavy metals, I'll personally take the cautious side of the debate every time.

Which leads us to the "fix" and the "stick". The fix being the technical measures necessary to effect the agreed upon goal, the stick being enforcement.

The "fix" - I've no clue. I'll leave that to the engineers and scientists who've a better understanding of such things. Based on the limited information presented in this thread, it sounds like most of the fixes are common sense, without causing an undue burden on businesses or citizens. The fact that some boat yards don't have enforcement steps being taken against them, suggests that pollution protections can be put in place that are economically viable.

The "stick" seems to be the major problem here. One thing I will suggest - we're probably better off having the PSA and other such organizations around, but addressing the rules under which they operate if their enforcement efforts are deemed heavy-handed. I'm not suggesting they are - I honestly don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

What I do have an informed opinion on, is how such things typically turn out when handed off to a government agency. Yes, I fall into that cynical group of people, who believes giving virtually any task to the government signals a willingness to have it done wrong. I'm much more comfortable having a volunteer army of people passionate about a cause, monitoring something so important - even if they get it wrong on occasion. Far better, than an expensive, ineffective and/or understaffed government agency, that doesn't discover a major issue until it's too late.

If the PSA is operating within the law, I'm all for them. If their tactics are deemed unfair or excessive, the problem lies with the rules under which they operate - not with the organization itself.

 

[Robbi]

If a boat yard takes the precautions that I mentioned and they still do not meet the standards, the next step is an expensive water filtration system. Some yards have done this and in this economy it can be tough. But, they are getting business from people who know and value the efforts that they have taken. The commercial salmon fleet realizes how further decline in their catches will hurt them. The Marine Trade Association did a study and found that 80% of the recreational boats sold in Puget Sound are sold to people who will use them to fish.

Robbi

 

[20dauntless]

Any entity, whatever they suport, that espouses radical, borderline militant ideas, to promote their agenda is wrong and dangerous and in the long run, costs us all a lot.

That would be the United States in the beginning. After all, weren't we a bunch of radicals who fought a war against England?

Besides, I don't think PSA is radical or borderline militant. You may disagree with their mission or their methods, but I don't think trying to keep Puget Sound clean through legal avenues is particularly radical or militant.

 

[Pat Anderson]

PSA is operating within the law. A lot of Public Works Directors have colorful language to describe what they do, but in the end, as I tried explain, they are doing exactly what Congress intended to occur with the citizen lawsuit provisions.

The problem, as I tried to explain also, is that the liability is absolute, with no consideration of cost of compliance or good faith in the attempt as a defense. Those might be considered in the setting of the penalty but not in the issue of liability, and not with respect to the citizen group's right to attorney fees. I do not have a solution.

If the PSA is operating within the law, I'm all for them. If their tactics are deemed unfair or excessive, the problem lies with the rules under which they operate - not with the organization itself.

 

[dotnmarty]

This has been an enlightening thread. A serious problem has been addressed and discussed, with some courtesy and restraint. Finally, the person most knowledgable about the issue said "I don't have a solution". That's real progress. I respect that. :thup

 

[journey on]

And, Pat, that appears to be a legal way of earning a living. The LA Times had a story of a guy in a wheel chair who would cruise the vendors at Venice Beach Street Fair. He knew every nonce of the handicapped access law and would check each vendor, every week for any violations: curb too high, access too narrow, etc. When (not if) he found a discrepancy, he'd talk to the owner, and offer to settle instead of filing a complaint. Made a decent living, I guess. Didn't really promote handicap access, but I gathered that wasn't his goal.

Boris

 

[rogerbum]

And, Pat, that appears to be a legal way of earning a living. The LA Times had a story of a guy in a wheel chair who would cruise the vendors at Venice Beach Street Fair. He knew every nonce of the handicapped access law and would check each vendor, every week for any violations: curb too high, access too narrow, etc. When (not if) he found a discrepancy, he'd talk to the owner, and offer to settle instead of filing a complaint. Made a decent living, I guess. Didn't really promote handicap access, but I gathered that wasn't his goal.

Boris

Who knows - it might have actually have improved handicap access as you'd think that eventually vendors would either learn from him what was a violation or get tired of paying and make sure they met whatever ADA stuff they were required to meet. Someday I think maybe I should rent a wheel chair and spend a day or two in it. I'd probably gain a real appreciation for why these ADA rules matter.

 

[localboy]

Any entity, whatever they suport, that espouses radical, borderline militant ideas, to promote their agenda is wrong and dangerous and in the long run, costs us all a lot.

That would be the United States in the beginning. After all, weren't we a bunch of radicals who fought a war against England?

Besides, I don't think PSA is radical or borderline militant. You may disagree with their mission or their methods, but I don't think trying to keep Puget Sound clean through legal avenues is particularly radical or militant.

Now don't go twisting my words. First off this isn't 1776.

How is some law firm or environmental group getting wealthy off of law suits or threats of suits "keeping Puget Sound clean"? It's not.

I didn't say PSA was radical or borderline militant. But let's be honest; the environmental movement has it's share of radical, militiant members/organizations; hence the term eco-terrorists.

My point was instead of suing some business with the only "benefit" being a richer attorney, the money/funds should go to SOLVING the problem. Isn't that the whole point? Funding someone's vacation home or new Mercedes Benz is not "environmentalism". Yes, it's within current law, but does that make it right?

I'm w/ Pat: I don't have the answer.

 

[Robbi]

Oh, boy! :crook

Oh boy! I'm going fishing! :smiled

Robbi

 

[20dauntless]

Now don't go twisting my words. First off this isn't 1776.

Agreed, but your previous post implied that PSA was radical and borderline militant. Yes, there are other radical environmental groups.

How is some law firm or environmental group getting wealthy off of law suits or threats of suits "keeping Puget Sound clean"? It's not.

Maybe the Lawyers are getting wealthy. But from previous posts, it sounds like PSA is not. My understanding, and this may be wrong, is that the settlements go to other organizations which spend the money on environmental projects. At least that's how it should be.

My point was instead of suing some business with the only "benefit" being a richer attorney, the money/funds should go to SOLVING the problem. Isn't that the whole point? Funding someone's vacation home or new Mercedes Benz is not "environmentalism". Yes, it's within current law, but does that make it right?

I'm w/ Pat: I don't have the answer.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[rogerbum]

<stuff clipped>
How is some law firm or environmental group getting wealthy off of law suits or threats of suits "keeping Puget Sound clean"? It's not.

Well if the company getting sued is a repeat violator and the financial pain they feel causes them to either clean up their act or get out of business, then the law AND the lawsuit has served the purpose of "keeping Puget Sound clean". In fact that's the entire point of both the law and the actions of PSA. Clearly the violating boatyards did not change their actions sufficiently after multiple tests indicating non-compliance. So, leaving them alone with the self reported knowledge that they were polluting wasn't enough to get them to change. That's the point of the lawsuit, the pain of paying out is the enforcement "stick" that Pat referred to above.

I didn't say PSA was radical or borderline militant. But let's be honest; the environmental movement has it's share of radical, militiant members/organizations; hence the term eco-terrorists.

Yes, the environmental movement does have some radical and militant members and organizations. PSA is not one of them. The environmental movement also has many, many well intentioned individuals. Many of them may be among your C-Brat "family" and many here are also PSA members.

My point was instead of suing some business with the only "benefit" being a richer attorney, the money/funds should go to SOLVING the problem. Isn't that the whole point? Funding someone's vacation home or new Mercedes Benz is not "environmentalism". Yes, it's within current law, but does that make it right?

I'm w/ Pat: I don't have the answer.

I think your assumption that the only benefit is a richer attorney is wrong. As I said above, the benefit is that those who are polluting either adjust their practices or get out of business. Either way, the near shore environment gets less heavy metals and the young salmon rearing close to shore (and other species) win. The fact that some lawyers make some money off of this doesn't make it right nor does it make it wrong (even if you do or don't like lawyers). Maybe the law should be rewritten so that lawyers can only make a certain percentage of the lawsuit and the remainder must be spent in a way to ameliorate the problem or improve the environment within a fixed radius of violation.

 

[thataway]

It does seem like PSA is being a bit heavy handed and perhaps some people are profiting from this.

In 1995 we hauled at Port Angeles shipyard. All of the water which was used in the boat bottom pressure washing was caught, filtered and recycled. The area under the boat was tarped and any dropping or dust was captured. Either Port Angeles was way ahead of the time, or other yards were not being responsible.

In Pensacola, we have had somewhat of the same problem with a memeber of the Water Keepers Alliance. Florida has a "clean shipyard and marina" designation. We were able to convince our largest shipyard that it was in their best interest (without threat of litigation or other action) to become a "Clean Shipyard". However, the coastkeepers alliance is definately biased with lawyers who do seem to profit for themselves. In fact the Pensacola Gulf Coastkeepers was started by, initially bankrolled by and still run by one of the law firms, which has profited from law suits. (which I believe is wrong). The irony is that they only tackle some specific issues, and avoid others (where there is a political reason to avoid that specific issue). This is hypocritical--and I suspect occurs in all areas.