<x-charset ISO-8859-1>I realize that, often, the fed govt 'interferes' in state laws-constitutions. The reverse is not true. The wishes of states, are not compelling on the fed gov't. In the matter of MTBE, the US congress(or a fed agency,under congressional direction) has jurisdiction over federal policy. The states are free to act, why are they complaining?, IMO, these state officals,,,'want to do what they want', but they want the fed govt to do the dirty work, with the intention of reducing the cost to their state of going it (mostly) alone, and, 'they want to get what they want', along with the political benefit of being able to point to someone else as the reason for having something controversial - being implimented. . Also, about gasoline leakage, the solution is above ground tanks. What is the 'greens' position on compelling gas stations to use belowground tanks? I would suspect that they would favor mandating below ground tanks, as that would case problems for gas stations with the issue of gas leakage. They don't say that, of course. A.M.
\--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really interesting. > > You're neglecting the supremacy clause of the federal constitution, which > makes "constitutional" any state law that offers greater protection than > federal law. When state law does not, federal law takes precedence. > > [Forget for the moment that there are ongoing arguments and evidence that > federal law presently disects its own constitutionality in many venues and > that new federal laws often often transgress state constitutions - state > constitutions which were oddly enough accepted when each state was ratified > into the union. Civil rights for gays and medicinal cannabis rights for the > ill are but two highly contested areas of state vs federal law.] > > While it's fine when state legislators issue law that conforms to the wishes > of constituents within a region, it is not acceptable when state legislation > compromises what has been afforded by either state or federal constitution, > among which is the protection of life (incorporating health) and property. > > Legislation of MTBE is one of those issues, where not even well designed > containment vessels can prevent its escape into hydrology, much less the > folly of thinking that a state border can contain it. > > This is exactly where federal law is expected to serve - to create a > national conformity that serves the betterment of the national constituency > rather than the narrower state constituency or even perhaps narrower sects > of the business sector. > > MTBE is not in the same league as voting for a state flower or a state song. > > Oh...., just in case you hadn't noticed all those fuel storage tanks across > the states that have been pulled out of the ground due to leakage, the > "greens" have been bringing it to the attention of state and local > legislatures for 20 years. > > And oddly enough it wasn't just "greens" that brought the item up for > scrutiny and continue to do so, especially when many of the tanks permitted > to replace the old ones have as bad or worse structural flaws than the tanks > they replaced, despite strengthened regs. > > Those who raised (and raise) hell about leaking tanks and the product MTBE > that no tank can contain are landowners, soccer moms, postmasters and > postmistresses, scientists, steel workers, coal miners, fast-food franchise > managers, garment industry workers and every other profession and personna > that happen to care about their, their children's and their neighbors' > health. > > Maybe what we oughta' do is serve up a daily glass of drinking water from a > local well contaminated with MTBE to Rush Lim-bought before he goes on air > every day and wait to see how long it is before he starts whining about it a > little differently > > Green he is not. But he is reasonably as concerned about his own health as > anyone else. > > Todd Swearingen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "amrqq" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:46 PM > Subject: [biofuel] Re: How Bush reversed regulatory effort on polluting gas > additive > > > > Keep in mind that any state is free to ban MTBE, ethanol,or whatever > > else they don't like. > > Gasoline leakage is not new. If this was a real problem, I would > > think that the greens would have cared enough about our health to > > bring it to the attention of state legislatures,if they(greens) > > thought they were not getting the appropriate action from Washington. > > (MTBE is-will be, banned in some states) > > I don't see any necessity for federal action, here. Each state > > has its own 'EPA', and is more than capable of taking action. > > > > A.M. > > > > > > \--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-17/s_13168.asp > > > > > > How Bush reversed regulatory effort on polluting gas additive > > > > > > Tuesday, February 17, 2004 > > > > > > By Pete Yost, Associated Press > > > > > > WASHINGTON - The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to > > > ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many > > > communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 > > > million to Republicans. > > > > > > The Environmental Protection Agency's decision had its origin in > > the > > > early days of President Bush's tenure when his administration > > decided > > > not to move ahead with a Clinton-era regulatory effort to ban the > > > clean-air additive MTBE. The proposed regulation said the > > > environmental harm of the additive leaching into ground water > > > overshadowed its beneficial effects to the air. The Bush > > > administration decided to leave the issue to Congress, where it has > > > bogged down over a proposal to shield the industry from some > > lawsuits. > > > > > > That initiative is being led by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, > > > R-Texas. A draft of the proposed regulation that former President > > > Clinton's EPA sent to the White House on its last full day in > > office > > > in January 2001 said, "The use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline > > > presents an unreasonable risk to the environment." > > > > > > The EPA document went on to say that "low levels of MTBE can render > > > drinking water supplies unpotable due to its offensive taste and > > > odor," and the additive should be phased out over four years. > > "Unlike > > > other components of gasoline, MTBE dissolves and spreads readily in > > > the ground water ... resists biodegradation, and is more difficult > > > and costly to remove." > > > > > > People say MTBE-contaminated water tastes like turpentine. In Santa > > > Monica, Calif., the oil industry will pay hundreds of millions of > > > dollars because the additive contaminated the city's water supply. > > > > > > "We're the poster child for MTBE, and it could take decades to > > clean > > > this up," said Joseph Lawrence, the assistant city attorney. In > > 2000, > > > the MTBE industry's lobbying group told the Clinton administration > > > that limiting MTBE's use by regulation "would inflict grave > > economic > > > harm on member companies." > > > > > > Three MTBE producers account for half the additive's daily output. > > > The three contributed $338,000 to George W. Bush's presidential > > > campaign, the Republican Party, and Republican congressional > > > candidates in 1999 and 2000 - twice what they gave Democrats, > > > according to the Center for Responsive Politics. > > > > > > Since then, the three producers have given just over $1 million to > > > Republicans. The producers are Texas-based Lyondell Chemical and > > > Valero Energy and the Huntsman companies of Salt Lake City. > > > > > > "This is a classic case of the Bush administration helping its > > > campaign contributor friends at the expense of public health," said > > > Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a > > > Washington-based environmental group. > > > > > > Huntsman spokesman Don Olsen, echoing comments by other MTBE > > > producers, said, "We were not a huge campaign contributor, and this > > > has absolutely nothing to do with campaign donations. It has to do > > > with good public policy." > > > > > > The industry says it has become a victim in a Washington power > > struggle. > > > > > > "Because of MTBE there has been a marked improvement in air quality > > > and reduction in toxics in the air," Olsen said. "Because of > > leaking > > > underground storage tanks in some relatively few instances, MTBE > > > found its way into places it shouldn't be. But that has nothing to > > do > > > with the product, which has done exactly what it was designed to > > do." > > > > > > Said Valero Energy spokeswoman Mary Rose Brown, "It would have been > > > impossible to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air Act without > > > MTBE." > > > > > > A daily Washington newsletter disclosed the existence of the draft > > > rule shortly after Bush's inauguration; outside the industry, few > > > people noticed. At the direction of White House chief of staff > > Andrew > > > Card and Mitch Daniels, then the White House's budget director, all > > > government agencies withdrew their pre-Inauguration Day draft > > > regulations. > > > > > > The EPA withdrew agency rules, including the MTBE one, in > > > mid-February 2001, White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton > > > said. In subsequent months, agencies rewrote many Clinton-era > > > regulatory proposals and went public with them. However, the > > proposed > > > MTBE regulation never surfaced. > > > > > > "As legislation looked more promising in 2002 and 2003, we focused > > > our energies on supporting language in the Senate's energy bill," > > > Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's assistant administrator for air > > quality, > > > said in a statement Friday. "We have not ruled out the possibility > > of > > > seeking a solution" by regulation, Holmstead said. > > > > > > The EPA favors a phaseout of MTBE through legislation. But the > > > legislation has stalled, and it no longer calls for a ban in four > > > years. > > > > > > Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for the > > Democratic > > > presidential nomination, issued a statement Sunday calling the MTBE > > > matter a case of the Bush administration "yet again putting special > > > interests over America's interest." He pledged to "take on the big > > > oil and gas companies and fight for clean water and a clean > > > environment." > > > > > > Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, "If the White House had not > > > rejected this regulation, MTBE would be virtually eliminated by now > > > and our groundwater would be protected." Waxman is the ranking > > > Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee. > > > > > > On their own, 17 states banned the additive and dozens of > > communities > > > are suing the oil industry. > > > > > > "Nobody's talking about the trial lawyers campaign contributions to > > > their supporters in Congress, and its the trial lawyers who are the > > > force behind these unjustified lawsuits," said Brown of Valero > > Energy. > > > > > > To regulate MTBE, the EPA would have to use the Toxic Substances > > > Control Act, which the agency considers cumbersome and unwieldy. > > > > > > MTBE industry representative Scott Segal said, "It took EPA a > > decade > > > to develop enough data to justify issuing a regulation for > > asbestos" > > > under the law. "Even then, the courts still blocked it." > > > > > > Bob Perciasepe, an EPA official during the Clinton administration, > > > said a regulatory approach would have provided "a pressure point" > > to > > > pass legislation. > > > > > > Georgetown University law professor Lisa Heinzerling said > > regulating > > > MTBE would be difficult, but "if we can't use the Toxic Substances > > > Control Act to regulate MTBE, which has contaminated water supplies > > > all over the country, then what can you use it for?" > > > > > > Source: Associated Press > > > > > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > > > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
