Obama backtracks on smog set up, bows to huge business

President Barack Obama put a stop on Friday to new rules that will limit smog pollution, unexpectedly reversing course on a key policy live when businesses said it might kill jobs and value them billions of dollars.

Obama said the choice to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality customary by the Environmental Protection Agency was a part of an attempt to cut back regulatory burdens for business.

The EPA has become a lightning rod for critics of state regulation and a hot-button issue for Republicans in the runup to the 2012 presidential campaign.

The move will be seen as another slap in the face for Obama’s supporters on the left, a various group already involved the administration has given in too quickly to huge business and Republican pressure on debt-reduction and alternative issues.

“The Obama administration is caving to huge polluters at the expense of protecting the air we have a tendency to breathe. this is often an enormous win for company polluters and an enormous loss for public health,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

Business teams and Republicans said the White House was creating the right decision because the country’s economy continued to struggle.

Opponents have argued the harder laws would value thousands of jobs and purge billions of dollars from very cheap line of company America.

“The president took a step these days that highlights the devastating impact on jobs that has been created by this administration’s regulatory overreach,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s prime Republican.

“This action alone can stop additional job losses than any speech the president has given.”

Obama’s announcement followed grim data on Friday that showed U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in August, with the jobless rate stuck at nine.1 percent.

DEMOCRATS DISAPPOINTED

The EPA, fraught from business and Republican lawmakers, delayed several times issuing the new rule that will limit smog pollution from power plants and factories.

Democrats in Congress referred to as the White House’s decision disappointing, and urged the administration to move aggressively on alternative clean-air challenges.

“I am disappointed that the president chose to additional delay necessary clean-air protections that will have helped to prevent respiratory and cardiac disease in thousands of americans,” said Ed Markey, the highest Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Environmental teams worry Obama is backing far from promises to safeguard the surroundings. they’re involved the administration appears poised to approve the Keystone pipeline to import additional oil from the Canadian tar sands, potentially boosting greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, supported by a broad vary of environmental teams, has said the ozone rules would save the maximum amount as $100 billion in health prices, and help stop as several as twelve,000 premature deaths from heart and lung complications.

“Many MoveOn members are wondering these days how they’ll ever work for President Obama’s re-election, or build the case for him to their neighbors, when he will one thing like this,” said Justin Ruben, government Director of MoveOn.org

Obama acknowledged the EPA set up may well be revisted once more in the future, noting the ozone customary would be reconsidered in 2013. “Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to start implementing a brand new customary that may soon be reconsidered,” Obama said in a statement.

In a decision with reporters, White House officials defended the administration’s environmental record, saying it might “vigorously oppose” efforts to weaken the EPA’s authority or regress on progress.

From the ruling on Climate Change are we to rethink the laws that govern the EPA, and are groups and States over reacting on the Clean Air issues.

The Supreme Court has limited the rights of government employees limiting their 1st Amendment rights.  They stated that the police chief can’t sue their employer over retaliation after he spoke out against a pay matter.  The Supreme Court overturned the lower U.S. Appeals Court ruling in favor of the police chief.  the incident took place in Duryea, PA.   

This is a case of was the 1st Amendment Rights denied, and why.  We wonder if this will be a presidency of the future rulings of the high court.  The right to speak is being limited in this case.  Do we have Freedom  of Speech?

The Sioux Indians have been fighting for years to get justice as they see it, and in most cases have been denied.  In the recent case of the Yankton Sioux Tribe’s Reservation the dispute has been going on for years.  The reservation laws are applied by the Federal jurisdiction, and the States have no jurisdiction of the reservations, what so ever.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in America, and there is noother body of court to criticize its ruling.  It appears that they are ruling on the conservative side in most cases. Since the Judges are appointed they will probably be serving for a long time on the bench.

What is fair? What is right? In what kind of a world is it okay to say “sorry” with

your “checkbook?” In what world is it alright to be superficial and not care about what

you have done or are doing or even your effect on people, your effect on the environment,

and your effect on the world around you instead of apologizing, instead being “civil,”

instead of doing the right thing ? Unfortunately the world that which I speak is the world

in which we live and the companies, governments, and individual people who have

committed some sort of felony or have done something simply wrong and get away with

their crimes through manipulation of the “justice” system and/or paying off the victims to

keep their mouths shut. This is the sorry truth of our reality.

A sorrowful rain of hypocrisy and corporate tyranny is falling upon the face of the

earth, burning through it’s ozone like acid and polluting both the environment and good

nature of the people that take shelter upon it. In the movie, A Civil Action, however

untrue some of the smaller details within it, there are prime examples of how big business

and unjust groups and people infect, like a disease, the morals and ethical conducts of the

global population.

To discuss in clearer detail, I will speak upon the injustices of “Big Business”,

specifically, in regard to the way in which they poison both the environment and the

public psyche. An example of this can be found within the setting and context of the

movie and/or book, A Civil Action where an extremely large multi-billion dollar company

is found to be at least semi-responsible for multitudes of childhood leukemia. The

company found guilty, after years of legal battles and leaving the main character of the

movie in bankruptcy and a state of deep depression, settled for a deplorable amount of

money that gave the victims of their crimes with just enough money to perhaps buy a

couple of scratch-offs in hopes of winning enough money to pay the ridiculous medical

bills that they owe due to their children dying on them. What horrible bad children they

are for costing their parents so much money because it must be their fault because it

couldn’t possibly be the companies fault because if it had been they would have settled

for a whole lot more money than they did in reality.

The repercussions of things like this, companies not taking responsibility for their

actions, are unpleasant to say the least. By cheating the world to line their own pockets,

big companies pollute the minds of the people, making it seem like this kind of deceit is

acceptable. Think for a moment, please, on what this says to the children that aren’t

killed by their environmental pollution, which is an issue that I will speak on later, it says

that it is okay to deceive people as long it makes you a couple of “bucks,” it’s okay to

cover up your mistakes and avoid the consequences just because they are not convenient

or cost effective enough to fix at that time, that it is perfectly okay to kill people as long

as it is done indirectly and by presenting these messages to the world they misshape the

morals and attitudes of the people that live on the very earth that the companies are

polluting.

Speaking of the pollution of the environment done by these companies, there are

horrible examples in the world today of their uncaring attitude towards environmental

issues. In the movie the case was based on dangerous chemicals seeping through the

ground, into the groundwater, and into the wells that provide water to the people of the

town, but similar things like this are done basically by every company that produces any

sort of chemical based product. For example textile mills and paper mills emit noxious

fumes into the air and even when the EPA and other groups and government officials put

into place different standards or regulations the big corporations find ways around them

to save money and not fix the problem or address the actual reason behind the standards.

So basically, they are just allowed to do whatever they find fit for their financial gains.

They are allowed to pollute the air and create all sorts of problems as long it

makes them money, and they don’t even have to fix their mistakes, it is up to them.

Even when there is a problem they calculate the cost of lawsuits versus the cost of

fixing the problem that they have. For example, let’s say a certain car company has

problems with their brake system and they decide the cost of fixing the issue and saving

lives outweighs the cost of simply letting the lawsuits roll in and settle for a fraction of

what it would cost to end the issue completely. So they let the people die so that they can

save money, because, as they may put it, “it’s the best financial option at the time.”

Although companies are the largest players in this poker game of corruption and

unfair scandal, people such as governors, presidents, bosses, and other individuals can be

just as bad as or worse than the damages that companies do to the environment and world

in general. For instance, tyrants such as Hitler and Kim Jong Il took control of people

and destroy things, take civil liberties away from innocent people, and corrupt entire

nations. Country’s governments can also be culprits of exploitation and damage to the

environment. Industrial government such as China’s and America’s produce tons and

tons of greenhouse gasses into the ozone on a regular basis furthering the murderous

process of global warming. One of these countries I mentioned above is even so bold,

and ignorant enough as to base their entire economy on this industry and dependency on it

so much so that this country is billions of dollars in debt to the other country I mentioned

above. I wonder which one it is.

In final reflections on the topic one will find that even though companies,

governments, and world leaders, are mostly responsible for being unfair, polluting the

environment, and poisoning the minds of our children, it is also in the fault of the

consumer and/or supporter for handing their money over to these people who are not

really trying to do any harm but simply to get rich, and is there really anything wrong

with that? I don’t really know but before you or people around you hand your hard earned

cash over to those people I want you to think for a second. I want you to picture your son,

daughter, niece, nephew, mother, father, brother, or sister. Now I want you to picture

them there next to you. They are smiling. Laughing even. Now I want you to picture a

green field and in the middle of that field there is a sorrowful hole and in that hole there is

a coffin, and within that weeping coffin there lying is your son or brother or mother, eyes

closed, they are dead. Perhaps they were one of the people that the companies let die in

order to save some money, maybe you’ll get a settlement, maybe they will say sorry with

their wallet, maybe they will, maybe they won’t, either way nothing will ever bring them

back, they are gone forever.

So before you buy a certain product, or support a certain group or company, think

about this. I don’t ask that you become a recluse, but be cautious, be careful, be aware.

Whatever you do go against the norm and do what the companies don’t, be fair.

Didn’t we used to run bad politicians out of not only office, but also out of town?  Maybe we should try that again.

On another note, I think we’d get better and more accurate representation if the ones who voted against what their constituents wanted didn’t get any pay after leaving Congress.  I also think the problems wouldn’t exist if the average person were the only one eligible to run for any political office.  Nobody with over $100,000 to their name in office.  Real people who knew about real problems.

The spending bill passed by the House of Representatives on February 19, if enacted into law, will destroy all the gains made to date for the protection of clean water, air, land, as well as gains in alternative fuel sources.  This bill includes, program stopping cuts for expanded transit, while continuing to support HUGE taxpayer SUBSIDIES for big oil.  Tens of billions of tax dollar revenue, monies taken from hard working American taxpayers, are going into the coffers of the richest corporations on the planet earth.  The house bill went on to cut funding to the EPA, which protects the people from polluters.  Further, this new Congress cut funding for renewable energy projects, clean water, and land conservation.  All of this done by policy riders attached to the most environmentally unconscionable bill ever brought to a vote.  It passed by landslide, 236 Republican votes and 13 Democrats.  Even worse, seventy-four members of the House of Representatives sided with big money polluting industries in their home state, against the welfare of their own constituents!  Is this really the referendum Americans wanted to show Congress, or did the voters accidentally let the fox into the hen house?

The real shame is this new legislation destroys much of the ideal and hopes many in this country had for the future.  This bill brings to a halt, the investments further needed to facilitate high-speed inter-continental rail, new highways, and millions of state and federal infrastructure projects, for safe water, and energy efficiency.  For example, the EPA is scheduled for a 29% reduction, and Energy Efficiency and renewable energy programs are scheduled to be sliced by 48%.  Cuts that deep come with their own burial plot.

This article barely scratches the surface what our elected officials are doing in our name, and justifying their actions by hiding under the excuse, “hard times require some hard choices.”  Some pet projects must go, and all of America applauds such lofty ideals and goals.  However, not all of America is comprised of Exxon, Shell, BP, DOW Chemical, DuPont, ADM, and the rest of the Fortune 500.  This country is comprised of a disappearing middle class, who expects a safe environment in which to raise their children.  The middle class that does the bulk of the work without any complaint, for less money today than ten years ago, expects its elected officials at the very least, to protect the water, the air, the ground around the community, so another “Love Canal” cannot happen.  Our elected officials use these economic hard times, people suffering from long term unemployment, no health care, record home foreclosures to play political games and one-upmanship. Please check out the following:  www.lcv.org  facebook.com/LCVoters.

Many people condemn environmental groups because of their goals and what they stand for. Environmentalists’ goals are not bad; environmentalism becomes a problem when their actions become extreme affecting human rights. Natural resources such as timber, water, oil, and many others provide an estimated 33 trillion dollars a year in revenue each year (Walsh).  Those resources should be taken care of and managed well, but the environmental groups have gone too far. When environmentalism infringes upon people’s rights in order to save a species, or when organizations spend millions to save turtle eggs while 50 million babies are aborted, something has to change. 

One of the most well-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club, founded by John Muir, paved the way for the birth of others environmental groups. Help for many of their causes came in the form of a book, Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson which people call a “…researched, carefully reasoned, and beautifully written book.”  She wrote that pesticides used by farmers threatened bird species and harmed consumers. Carson’s thoughts and topics opened American’s eyes to the importance of conserving nature (Black). Now there are too many organizations to count whose mission is to save a certain species or prevent pollution; organizations such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the WDCA (Whale and Dolphin Conservatory Society), the Sierra Club, and others. Though many of these groups mean well, they have taken their beliefs to the extreme.

EPA stands alone as the most proactive environmental group. As a federal agency, Congress passes “acts” that the EPA regulates and enforces; acts such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act which control water and air pollution. Much of what the EPA has helped pass does improve the environment, but some laws hinder everyday life. One place the negative effect of the EPA can be seen happened in Washington State and Oregon. After the sighting of the endangered Northern Spotted Owl in 1992, the Endangered Species Act restricted the timbering of many forests in Oregon and Washington which resulted in an estimated 10,000 jobs lost in Oregon, and in an estimated 28,000 jobs lost in Washington (Andre and Velasquez, Cooper).

Furthermore, the Deep Water Horizon’s oil spill remains the most recent and worst oil spill ever. Their well, 5,000 feet under water, exploded releasing over 5 million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico (GOS). Oil washed up onto beaches, harmed birds, and affected fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. No doubt, this disaster could have been prevented if Deep Water had followed the proper regulations. However, important facts never surfaced in the media such as regulation that prevent drilling in shallow waters. This regulation contributed to the lengthy repair, making it impossible for worker to physically repair the leak, at a depth of 5,000 feet, without using fine tuned robots. If the depth of the well had not been required to be so deep, repairs would have gone much faster and less oil would have leaked out.

Over the past several years environmental groups have pushed for cleaner emissions and stricter green house gas regulations, with Congress and the EPA at the forefront of the changes.  Many states sued EPA claiming that they outsourced their research to scandal filled organizations (Gardner& Abbot). Since Global Warming’s reliability took a turn for the worse last year when false data and corrupt researchers were exposed, people across America have started to question the true affect of green house gas emissions on the earth.

Environmentalism has taken hold of today’s society and has become one of the “most important issues.” People, private organizations, and even the government pour millions of dollars each year into forest and animal conservation, the Endangered Species Act, and other programs. Many more things in today’s society have become regulated due to the improvement of the environment, making it harder for car companies to make cars, making it hard for waste disposal, and new sources of energy to be used. Much of what environmentalists do for the environment is good, but the extent that they have taken to protect animals and natural resources has become a real problem for many hard working Americans.

Work cited page:

Online sources:

Abbot, Greg. “Attorney General Abbott says EPA’s

            endangerment finding based on outsourced science

            from scandal-plagued group.” Unknown (2010): n.

            pag. Web. 20 Jan 2011. <http://politifact.com/texas

            /statements/2010/may/10/greg-abbott/attorney-

            general-abbott-says-epas-endangerment-fin/>.

Andre and Velasquez, Claire and Manuel. “Ethics and the Spotted Owl Controversy.”                              Santa Clara Universety. Unknown, Unknown. Web. 12 Jan 2011.             <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/homepage.html>.

Black, Lewis. “The Birth of EPA.” Epa Journal                                                                                            (1985): n. pag. Web. 19 Jan 2011.                       <http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm>.

Cooper, M. H. (1992, May 15). Jobs vs. environment. CQ Researcher, 2, 409-432. Retrieved from             http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

Gardner, Timothy. “Us States Sue EPA to Stop Green

            House Gas Rules.” Unknown (2012): n. pag. Web.

            20 Jan 2011. <http://www.reuters.com/article

            /idUSN1916237120100319>.

Jost, K. (1995, June 16). Property rights. CQ Researcher, 5, 513-536. Retrieved from             http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

Unknown. “Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.” NYTimes. New York Times, 11 Jan. 2011. Web. 27 Jan.

            2011.<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_spills

            /gulf_of_mexico_2010/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=oil%20spill&st=cse>.  GOS

Written Sources:

Walsh, Bryan. “Dow and the Nature Conservancy Announce a Multi-Million Dollar Deal on

            Ecosystem Services and Sustainability – Ecocentric – TIME.com.” Ecocentric – A Blog

            about All Things Green, from Conservation to Capitol Hill – TIME.com. Time

            Magazine, 24 Jan. 2010. Web. 26 Jan. 2011. <http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/01

            /24/nature-a-major-company-puts-a-value-on-the-environment/>.

One remarkable water conservation method is the High-Efficiency Toilet (HET). Today, the HET toilet is just as stylish as a “normal” toilet. They come with round or elongated bowls and are either one or two-piece construction. However, the high-efficiency toilet only uses 1.28 gallons of water per flush while a normal toilet uses 1.6 gallons of water per flush.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided industry standards through its WaterSense program. To earn a WaterSense label a HET is able to completely flush and clear debris in a single flush. Correctly, their thinking is that if you have to flush more than once to clear the bowl you are actually wasting water and not saving it. Despite this, the federal standard for new construction and remodeling is for toilets not to exceed 1.6 gallons per flush. The WaterSense program standards are helping water conservation the same way the EPA Energy Star program has helped consumers and businesses lower their electrical use. A WaterSense label is only granted to an HET after certification by a recognized third-party.

Another voluntary national program is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. This program is under the direction of the non-profit United States Green Building Council.Developers and builders seeking LEED certification for their projects include high-efficiency toilets in their plans. A home that has LEED certification is attractive to buyers as it assures them that a LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project meets the highest green building and performance measures. Most new commercial buildings have high-efficiency toilets since they save building owners money from day one of occupancy.

Local community water companies along with government are offering rebates and tax incentives for homeowners. The Environmental Protection Agency claims that if a family of four changed out a toilet manufactured between 1980 and 1994 they would save more than $90 per month on their water bill. The amount saved over the life of the toilet is about $2,000. The toilets manufactured during this time period use 3.5 gallons of water per flush, more than double the amount that a High Efficiency Toilet uses. The average home uses 350 gallons per day of water. Over 25% of this use is for flushing toilets. High-efficiency toilets help greatly in reducing water usage and cost.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for better air. Tuesday’s smog alert has been extended through today.

The National Weather Service does not predict relief until late Friday or early Saturday. Cooler, cleaner air may arrive by then, a forecaster said.

Meanwhile, today is expected to be partly cloudy, hazy, hot and humid with a high in the lower 90s. There’s a chance of thunderstorms Thursday and Friday, but they may not pack enough wind to evacuate the smog.

Tuesday was the second straight day of hot, sticky weather in the Dayton area and the second time this year that regional air pollution control officials declared an “ozone action ” or smog alert. Today is expected to be much the same.

For thousands of area residents who suffer from chronic respiratory illness, that was no dog days’ joke. It was serious.

“It’s a severe situation, a very bad time,” said Dr. Morton Nelson, Montgomery County health commissioner. “Not only is there an (air) inversion layer keeping everything near the ground, but the high temperature and humidity create a secondary problem with the ozone.”

Ozone, the main component of smog, is an unstable form of oxygen that is especially dangerous for people with vulnerable lungs or hearts.

“Children with asthma can have an attack that becomes an emergency,” Nelson said. “We’re keeping our fingers crossed.”

Officials at area hospitals reported few weather-related illnesses Tuesday, but some cautioned more people could be affected if the alert continues.

The year’s first ozone alert was July 7, when local levels of the compound hit the federal air-quality upper limit of 125 parts per billion. If the limit is reached more than three times in a three-year period, environmental officials can impose sanctions, including restrictions on manufacturing growth.

Smog alerts are called whenever forecasters think the limit might be reached. On Monday, the ozone level was measured at 106. At 4 p.m. Tuesday, it was at 104, but final figures will not be available until today.

Even if the gauges record an ozone level below 125 parts per billion, Meier said recent research has shown hazards to humans when it’s as low as 80.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a more stringent air-quality standard that would take effect by this fall, he said. In any case, the most dangerous times to be outdoors are around noon to 6 or 7 p.m.

Anti-pollution laws have helped, Meier said. “We were close to 200 readings back in the early 1970s,” the era of muscle cars and belching smokestacks.

While from the outside the debate may seem like just so much posturing, it’s worth noting that the scientific community has some honest divisions about what the literature says about the health effects of different levels of pollution. Nobody is suggesting that smog and dirt are good, but they are disagreeing about how clean the air can be made and at what cost.

EPA administrator Carol Browner has asked to extend the public comment period on the proposed new rules. That would give people more time to look over the studies, but the truth is that nobody is likely to be proven right or wrong about their assumptions. Much of what people are anticipating – negative and positive health effects, costs to industry, business lost to certain communities – is guesswork.

Most folks who bother to study the questions will pick the expert or side that makes the most sense and then lean in that direction. The result is likely to be some tightening of standards in some places, some compromise on others. At least the question is on the public table. If you stick around long enough, you will witness the results – in the cost of some goods or in what you breathe.

            The judge presiding in the federal courtroom in Denver was not amused. “Well, Mr. Anderson, let me try to express my concern a little more specifically,” District Court Judge Jim R. Carrigan began. “Your duty as an attorney, representing the United States of America, and the Environmental Protection Agency, is to get as thorough a cleanup within the applicable statutes as you can.”

            “That’s correct,” replied David Anderson, a lawyer with the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

            “And your duty to the Army, your other client,” Judge Carrigan continued, “is to not spend any more of its money [on the cleanup] than is necessary. Would you agree?”

            Suddenly, no longer in accord with the judge, Anderson flatly rejected Carrigan’s suggestion that as a lawyer in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department his obligations to the EPA conflicted with his duties to the army. Focusing in on the specifics of the case, and not directly responding to the judge’s conflict of interest question, Anderson added the extraneous point that he “had never heard from the Army that they wish to keep their costs at a minimum. I have never received that direction.”

            Carrigan, however, remained doubtful. If the army was unconcerned about the cleanup costs, he asked Anderson, “why haven’t they cleaned it up before then? Why are they waiting for a court order to go ahead?”

            About a week later, at another hearing, Judge Carrigan brought up the same point with one of Anderson’s bosses. “All right, Mr. Flint,” the judge said. “You understand that attorneys in your office have taken the position that a particular attorney can represent both the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army in this litigation? To small-town farm boy, practiced in a town of 7,500 people, and it seemed to me, in the old days, you couldn’t represent people who were on opposite sides of a lawsuit if you were one attorney.”

            But Assistant Attorney General Myles Flint, like Anderson, was not prepared to accept the judge’s view of the situation. “It is the position of the Department of Justice of the United States that there is no conflict of interest here, either factually or legally,” Flint replied.

            The immediate matter at stake in the dispute between Flint, Anderson and Judge Carrigan was of considerable consequence. How could a single Justice Department lawyer represent two federal agencies-one the polluter, the other the pollution fighter-in working out the procedural details involved in the cleanup of a massive cesspool of toxic wastes that another court would later describe as “one of the worst hazardous waste pollution sites” in the country?

            The army had constructed the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a twenty-seven-square-mile area in the suburbs to the northeast of Denver, in the middle of World War II to manufacture and assemble chemical warfare agents and incendiary munitions. Over the years, portions of the arsenal were leased to private companies, including the Shell Oil Company, for the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. In 1956, the army built what it called Basin F, a 92.7-acre artificial lake with a capacity to store up to 243 million gallons of liquid hazardous waste. Although Basin F was lined with a three-eighths-inch-thick asphaltic membrane, it apparently began leaking almost immediately. In 1983, the army told the EPA that some of the hazardous wastes had seeped into the groundwater.

            In November 1986 and October 1987, the state of Colorado sued the army, seeking a number of remedies for what it alleged were violations of Colorado’s environmental laws. Colorado’s suit was based on two important provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. One of these provisions authorized the EPA to extend certain hazardous waste enforcement responsibilities to the states. The second waived the immunity of the federal government from civil suits brought by state and local agencies seeking to enforce their own hazardous waste laws.

            After a good deal of legal maneuvering, Justice Department lawyers, arguing for the army, informed Colorado that the United States had not waived its immunity from being sued because the cleanup of Basin F was not governed by the Resource Conservation Act of 1976 but by a different law. Had the Justice Department prevailed with this argument, the state of Colorado would have been blocked from supervising the cleanup of Basin F.

            From the very beginning of the long dispute, however, Judge Carrigan had indicated that in his view the individual Justice Department lawyers in his courtroom who claimed to speak for both the army and the EPA had a conflict of interest and that this conflict meant the people of Colorado were not being adequately represented. On June 24, 1988, as a result of his concern, Carrigan ordered both the state and the Justice Department to file briefs on the conflict question.

            As it did in its oral arguments, the Justice Department asserted there was no conflict. Even on those occasions when a single Justice Department attorney was in court representing both sides, the department said, that attorney actually was speaking for the president who, in the end, was responsible for all parts of the executive branch. Colorado, on the other hand, argued that on its face the representation of the army and the EPA by the same Justice Department attorneys violated the code of professional responsibilities. In addition, the state said there was concrete evidence that during the development of the Justice Department’s ultimate position regarding Basin F, “EPA officials were not consulted or involved in constructing the initial draft of the brief and were provided less than 72 hours to review it.”

            In early 1989, Carrigan ruled against the Justice Department and the army and in favor of the state. “The same Justice Department attorneys have repeatedly claimed to represent both the Army and the EPA in this action, even though the Army is the defendant and the EPA acts for the United States as the plaintiff,” Carrigan wrote. “Since it is the job to clean up as quickly and thoroughly as possible, and since the Army’s obvious financial interest is to spend as little money and effort as possible on the cleanup, I cannot imagine how one attorney can vigorously and wholeheartedly advocate both positions.”

            Were he to grant the Justice Department’s request and remove Colorado from the process, the judge continued, “the Army’s cleanup efforts would go unchecked by any parties whose interests are in a sense adverse to those of the Army,” and there would be “no vigorous independent advocate for the public interest.”

            Judge Carrigan’s challenge to the Justice Department, later upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, naturally focused on the single case before him and the question of how Justice Department’s lawyers appearing in his court could represent both sides of the multimillion-dollar dispute. IN many ways, however, the Basin F case dramatically illustrates the core contradiction that makes the Justice Department such a difficult place to work. Because that contradiction was, and is, as visible as a thunder storm in the summer sky, Flint and Anderson and all the other government lawyers were forced to resort to shouting foolish denials.

            But from the moment George Washington’s first attorney general took office to the long tedious battle about the Basin F cleanup, the gnawing difficult question has remained: Who do the attorney general, and all the Justice Department attorneys, represent? How, at the same time, is it possible for them to serve the immediate political interests of the president and, as officers of the court, the long-term well-being of the American people? It is a true conundrum.

© David Burnham