"People Who Hate Wal-Mart Hate Success"

Great rant from Greg Gutfield, and so true:

As any Manhattan masseuse will tell you, I love a happy ending. And that's exactly what I've found in this story about angry locals who tried to keep a Wal-Mart out of their town.

In this case, after years of tangling with selfish, poorly informed citizens, Wal-Mart finally took its toys and left, leaving the idiots of Plainfield Township, Pennsylvania, to fend for themselves.

Now, that's not the happy ending. This is: What took Wal-Mart's place was a metal-shredding plant. A massive, recycling noise machine, louder than a freight train and prone to accidental explosions. The citizens now have a monster in their midst -- so, make way for more petitions.

And I love every minute of it!

As you know, Wal-Mart has been an object of spite, usually from fools too cowardly to admit that their bile has less to do with the store than with their own insignificance. People who hate Wal-Mart really hate the success that's eluded them. As for the attacks on Wal-Mart from elitist media hacks — that's bigotry, for they assume you must be genetic trash to shop there.

Fact is, Wal-Mart is just a symbol of America — a successful phenomenon that brings you what you need cheaply. But to its opposition, it's the daddy that never hugged them -- poor things.

So, Plainfield got what was coming. I hope every night they go to bed hearing the mangling of metal, thinking, "If only a Wal-Mart was nearby, we could buy earplugs."

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Moscow likely to see stormwater regulations; EPA plans to list city under Stormwater Phase II program"

What goes around, comes around. I actually hate to see any city subjected to these silly and expensive regulations, but Queen Nancy called down the thunder....

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Environmental Protection Agency has again stated its intention to make Moscow face intensive stormwater regulations, but this time the City Council is unlikely to fight it.

The council's Public Works/Finance Committee agreed Monday night that Moscow should accept being listed under the EPA's Stormwater Phase II program instead of trying to appeal the decision. Public Works Director Les MacDonald has estimated it will cost the city about $300,000 a year for the first five years of the program to meet its requirements.

Moscow will be required to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit if it is listed as a regulated small municipal separate storm system under Phase II.

The regulations are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge, as well as reduce downstream pollution and contamination.

Moscow was first alerted to the EPA's plans in June 2007. The City Council decided at the time to send the EPA a letter asking for control of its own stormwater system.

The EPA spent the last year reviewing Moscow's situation. MacDonald said EPA officials spoke to him in June and said the new data they'd found confirmed their decision that Moscow should be listed. For example, tests showed that fecal coliform contamination in parts of Paradise Creek is too high.

"City staff has been working on trying to track down where some of that's coming on so we can try to stop it where we can," MacDonald said.

MacDonald said Moscow already has some programs in place that will be required by the Phase II listing, although some of those will need to be beefed up. The city does not actively process stormwater right now, but will have to. The program also requires public education programs, detection and elimination of illicit discharge, and construction run-off control.

He said Moscow will have some flexibility within the program if it chooses not to fight it. The city likely will be able to set milestones for itself and gradually meet the requirements of the program over five years.

MacDonald conducted an analysis of the program's potential effects on the city last year. Based on the analysis, MacDonald estimated the city will need to add four-and-a-half staff members to cover the needs of the program, as well as buy an additional street sweeper and inspection equipment. He estimated the cost would be $300,000 a year on average.

City Supervisor Gary Riedner said Moscow likely will consider a stormwater utility fee to help cover the cost of the program, and MacDonald agreed.

The city of Pullman also is dealing with stormwater regulations from a Washington State Department of Ecology permit issued in early 2007. The estimated cost for the city to meet requirements in the permit's first five years is $4.4 million and the Pullman City Council is contemplating a stormwater utility fee to help recover the costs. Landowners' fees would be based on the amount of impervious surface on their property, and the city is hoping to generate about $800,000 per year.

MacDonald said he's not sure why there is such a big difference between Pullman and Moscow's cost estimates, and said his estimate was "very rough."

"It will likely change," MacDonald said. "It could go up. I doubt it would go down much."

Moscow Public Works/Finance Committee member Wayne Krauss initially expressed interest in fighting the listing.

"I think it's really unfortunate that the federal government, in this case the EPA, stands there with this big hammer over our heads threatening us with a bunch of fines if we don't bow under," he said.

He asked about the city's potential to fight the listing. City Attorney Randy Fife said Moscow has not historically been successful in fighting federal regulations and that the government takes the view that cities eventually comply, one way or another.

"Kind of what you're saying is we're screwed," Krauss said.

Krauss and committee members Dan Carscallen and John Weber eventually decided to recommend to the City Council as a whole not to fight the regulation. Weber said it would be better for Moscow to accept the program than put itself "in the middle of the radar screen" of the EPA.

I Think That I Shall Never See A Petition Lovely As A Tree

With regards to the planned "deforestation" in front of Avery Hall on the WSU campus, I could really care less. WSU is not the center of our universe and there is a lot more that goes on in this community than the undergraduate penchant for revolutionary drama encouraged by their mentors in the ivy-covered halls of academe.

On the one hand, those are trees that were planted by the university, not some old-growth cedar grove, and the university can do with them as they please. On the other hand, there is a certain delicious hoist and petard element to this whole situation. As long as the professors professional activists are busy biting the hand that feeds them and are not agitating and meddling in the city of Pullman's business, I'm happy.

But the online petition started to save the trees has provided for some rather amusing comments:

46. Don't Destroy Our Campus!!!!
I love the big old trees on campus. The forest-y look is what attracted me to WSU in the first place. The trees make campus beautiful and wonderful to walk around. HOW DARE YOU DESTROY A TREE!!! Trees are irriplaceable. They make our air cleaner and our environment gorgeous. This is disgusting! I cannot believe I am associated with a university that would do such a horrible, phallic act!!!
7/17/2008 9:09:47 AM

"irriplaceable?" Yikes. A mind is also a terrible thing to waste. With spelling errors like that, it seems the English Department's biggest problem is not trees being cut down. "Phallic act?" Must be a Women's Studies major.

527. When There's Nothing Left To Sustain, Why Talk About Sustainability?
A military officer boasts of destroying a village in order to save it; a bomb is labeled a "peacemaker;" and institutional racism is labeled "diversity." So we shouldn't be surprised to see the cutting down of trees labeled "beautification." But it doesn't change the truth. Save the trees and cut down the lies.
John Streamas, Comparative Ethnic Studies
7/14/2008 3:56:01 PM

Ah, yes. War, racism, cutting down trees...It's all the same to ExStreamas. What a maroon.

579. Save the Avery Grove Trees and the Murrow Yard Trees too
This is ridiculous. Cutting down a tree here and there that is diseased or otherwise problematic is one thing, but this sort of clear cutting is absurd and, I would add, anti-environmental.
Christopher Lupke, Associate Professor, Foreign Languages and Cultures
7/13/2008 9:40:16 PM

I'm suprised Lu Laoshi didn't implicate the "Forbes Gang" for the "clear cutting."

585. Cougar pride?
Where is the pride in our heritage when we propose to cut down so many trees that in addition to their important shading function and great beauty are a rich part of WSU's history? And where is the imagination of our planners that they cannot find a way to keep the trees while making useful improvements?
T.V. Reed, Professor of English, Avery Hall
7/13/2008 3:24:07 PM

And where is the UFCW and their big-shot Seattle lawyers?

Think Globally, Act Hypocritically

That bad smell coming from the east is not burnt grain. It's the smell of the rankest of hypocrisy coming out of Moscow.

You remember, the Moscow that filed a SEPA appeal against the Hawkins Companies development in the corridor last year based in part upon "stormwater drainage design"...the Moscow that also last year filed SEPA comments against the relocation of James Toyota to the corridor because it would create a "heat island" for stormwater runoff that would "harm" Paradise Creek...the Moscow that constantly lectures Whitman County about "sprawl" in the corridor because of the "environmental impacts."

Well, according to today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News, that same Moscow is actively going to fight attempts by the EPA to impose the same onerous stormwater regulations on it as have been imposed by the Washington Department of Ecology on Pullman and WSU.

And what does Mayor Green/Sustainable/Cool City have to say? She thinks Moscow should meet the EPA stormwater guidelines. Uh, okay, Queen Nancy, you're Les McDonald's boss. Order him not to fight the EPA listing. And where is King Solomon and his Merry Band of Aquinuts? Will Mr. Civil Discourse pen a column attacking Chaney and Moscow's decision to appeal the stormwater regulations?

A clearer example of the famous leftist double standard you could never hope to find. If, after this, anyone thinks all of Moscow's environmental talk isn't just so much BS to hide their elitist hatred of big box stores, they must be smoking some of that burnt wheat.

I'm going to enjoy watching Moscow be slowly hoisted on this petard.

City of Moscow plans to fight potential EPA listing

City could be forced to implement stormwater standards

The city of Moscow is hoping to convince the Environmental Protection Agency that it can take care of its stormwater problems without federal oversight.

Moscow has until Sept. 15 to provide information to sway the EPA from listing the city as a Phase II stormwater entity.

The City Council's Public Works/Finance Committee discussed how to best deal with the potential listing at its Monday meeting and decided to fight it.

If Moscow is listed as a regulated small municipal separate storm system (MS4) under Phase II, it will be required to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, according to a letter sent by an EPA Region 10 official in June.

The regulations are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge. The requirements are intended to reduce downstream pollution and contamination.

Public Works Director Les MacDonald said he estimated the average yearly cost of meeting the Phase II standards to be anywhere from $250,000-$350,000. The city of Pullman and Washington State University recently were listed as Phase II entities, and MacDonald said he based his estimates on their figures and those of other Phase II cities.

The preliminary listing does not guarantee Moscow will be listed. MacDonald said the officials he has talked to "have indicated some reluctance of the EPA to list the city."

He said the EPA is looking for more information from the city because the information it has is outdated. Moscow could stay off the Phase II list by showing the EPA what it has done and plans to do regarding stormwater.

"I suspect that if the city were to say we'd feel there's good reason to pursue some of these things they might be willing to back away from us," MacDonald said.

McDonald prepared a document that addresses the EPA's assessment of Moscow and argues against some of the criteria. He wrote that the EPA is not aware of steps Moscow has taken to reduce "pollutant loading" in Paradise Creek and included a chart showing future and completed projects recommended by Moscow's Watershed Advisory Group.

Mayor Nancy Chaney could not attend the meeting, but sent a memo with her opinions on the matter. She wrote that Moscow should "comply with the expected requirements" regardless of whether it is listed as a Phase II entity.

"We are already doing many - if not most - of the things expected of MS4 operators as Moscow strives to become a model of sustainable practices," Chaney wrote.

Committee members concluded the city should fight the listing.

City Councilwoman Linda Pall said the city should show the EPA that it's already working to be in line with Phase II standards and should not be listed.

"I do think that we ought to have the 'but you know we don't qualify' part of this pretty strongly outlined," she said. "Not litigiously ... just pointing out the facts of the situation so they know if they want to take us on, they might not be able to win on this one."

Council members Bill Lambert and John Weber agreed.

"If we can solve the problem ourselves, I think we're way ahead," Weber said.

McDonald said it may cost the city less money if it is not listed as a Phase II entity but pursues some of the requirements anyway.

The city already is considering adding a stormwater utility, and implementing that utility would give the city money to spend on stormwater regulation, McDonald said.

The University of Idaho also is preliminarily listed as a Phase II entity, and officials have decided to try to persuade the EPA not to include the university.

"We are going to supply information that we think that we should not be regulated," said Fred Hutchison, UI environmental health and safety director.

Hutchison said the UI is not a significant polluter and does not affect "sensitive waters" as defined by the EPA.

It is "quite possible" the university would implement some stormwater regulations even if it's not listed, he said.

"It's preliminary right now, so we're not real sure where this is going to go," he said.

Of Pots, Kettles, Hoists, and Petards

"We don't feel like the bad guys here."

- Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney in today's Lewiston Tribune on Moscow's payment of a $134,000 fine to the Environmental Protection Agency for more than 950 violations of the Clean Water Act between March 2002 and June 2006.

"Moscow's new wastewater treatment plant will be out of date within two years of its completion this spring.

The plant will have cost the city and its ratepayers $12 million. It will produce treated water many times cleaner than the wastewater the old treatment plant discharged into Paradise Creek. Unless city water use changes significantly, treated water won't meet environmental requirements.

Increased regulation of sewer water means Moscow will not meet requirements of its wastewater discharge permit in 2004, according to city officials."

- Moscow-Pullman Daily News, December 28, 2001

Perhaps O.J. will join Queen Nancy in searching for the real "bad guys."

The EPA Wants Your Comments on Moscow's Water Pollution

As we in Pullman and Whitman County live downstream from all of Moscow's numerous water pollution violations, I think we all should file a comment with the Environmental Protection Agency, especially since the City of Moscow and Mark Solomon have filed complaints against water rights transfers for the Hawkins Companies development in Whitman County.

The full EPA notice follows:

EPA proposes Penalty Against City of Moscow, Idaho for Clean Water Act Violations

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10 (ORC-158)
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101

Date of Notice: April 30, 2007

Comment Period Open Until: May 30, 2007

Action: Proposed Penalty Assessment under the Clean Water Act

Description of Violation and Relief Sought: Pursuant to Section 309(g)(4) of the Clean Water Act (“Act”), the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (“EPA”) is providing public notice of the proposed penalty described below. In order to provide opportunity for public comment, EPA will not take final action in this proceeding prior to 40 days after publication of this notice.

EPA proposes to commence an administrative penalty action against the City of Moscow, Idaho (“Respondent”) for violation of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). EPA alleges that the Respondent is in violation of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) individual permit authorized under Section 402 of CWA. Violations include: Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen (“DO”), Total Residual Chlorine (“TRC”) and Fecal Coliform Bacteria. EPA proposes to assess a penalty in the amount of $134,000.

Persons wishing to comment on EPA’s proposed action or to become participants in this action may do so by submitting their address and telephone number, along with written comments, to the Regional Hearing Clerk at the address above within 30 days of the date of this notice. This is a Class II administrative penalty proceeding, governed by Section 309(g)(2)(B) of the CWA and the procedural rules found at 40 C.F.R. Part 22. The requirements that apply to public comment and participation are set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 22.45.

Name of Case: City of Moscow Wastewater Treatment Facility

Docket Number of the Complaint: CWA-10-2007-0114

Name and address of Complainant:
Michael A. Bussell, Director
Office of Compliance and Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10 (OCE-164)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101

Name and address of Respondent:
City of Moscow
P.O. Box 9203
Moscow, Idaho 83843

Name, address, and telephone number of Regional Hearing Clerk:
Carol Kennedy, Regional Hearing Clerk
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10 (ORC-158)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 553-0242

Location of Facility: Moscow, Idaho

Applicable Permit No.: ID-002149-1

Business/activity of Respondents: wastewater treatment facility

Comments Accepted: In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.45, any person wishing to comment on or participate in this proceeding must notify the Regional Hearing Clerk within 30 days of this notice. The person must provide a name, complete mailing address, and any comments the person has on this action.

A copy of the administrative complaint is available for review and copying between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA’s Seattle Office (see address listed above).

For any additional information on this action, please contact Jamie Sikorski at (206) 553-5153.