Saturday, March 28, 2015
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

WCN Site Search


Lost & Found

FOUND SHEEP,black. on CR 427 & Hwy 123 Pls call to claim 210-862-1220

VideoFound: Black female dog with white spot on chest, in Poth, very friendly but has no collar. Call 830-484-2024
Lost 2 Yorkies in Wildflower subdivision on Iris Crescent in floresville Male grey with black goes by Toby Female black with red goes by Bell please call 830-391-3435
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

The Massage Therapy Center of Pleasanton is seeking licensed massage therapist. This position requires punctuality and excellent customer service skills; must be experienced or willing to learn, excellent pay, flexible hours, and extremely positive working environment. Apply by calling 830-569-5009 or send resume to mtcwellness@yahoo.com
ON-CALL CRISIS POOL WORKERS NEEDED. Part-time positions are available for after hours “on-call” crisis workers to respond to mental health crisis for Wilson and Karnes Counties. Duties include crisis interventions, assessments, referrals to stabilization services, and referrals for involuntary treatment services according to the Texas Mental Health Laws. You must have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in psychology, sociology, social work, nursing, etc. On-call hours are from 5 p.m.-8 a.m. weekdays, weekends and holidays vary. If selected, you must attend required training and must be able to report to designated safe sites within 1 hour of request for assessment. Compensation is at a rate of $200 per week plus $100 per completed and submitted crisis assessment, and mileage. If interested call Camino Real Community Services, 210-357-0359.
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos





Video Vault ›

Commentaries


EPA’s legal losing streak




E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

Disclaimer:
The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or wilsoncountynews.com.
July 6, 2012 | 1,793 views | 2 comments

By Josiah Neeley

Alexis de Tocqueville once noted that “scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”

Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of environmental policy, where the courts are often the only refuge for those caught in the path of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory steam-roller.

After more than three years of what The Wall Street Journal called “a regulatory spree unprecedented in U.S. history,” EPA’s regulatory actions are finally being tested in court. And in a mounting number of cases, they have been found wanting.

In March, the Supreme Court handed EPA a unanimous rebuke in Sackett v. EPA. The Sacketts are an Idaho couple who ran afoul of the EPA when they tried to build a house on their 2/3 acre lot. EPA claimed that the land was a protected wet-land, and threatened the Sacketts with up to $75,000 per day in fines if they didn’t comply with EPA’s commands.

When the Sacketts sued, EPA sought to avoid judicial review of their actions, a position rejected by the Court. The focus of EPA’s losing streak has been in Texas.

A week after the Sackett decision, a federal appeals court threw out EPA’s rejection of Texas’ Qualified Facilities Rule.

Adopted in 1995, the rule allows plants to make physical and operational changes to their sites without having to go through the full repermitting process unless the changes either increase emissions or result in the release of new contaminants.

After taking no action for more than a decade, in 2010 EPA rejected Texas’ rule on the novel grounds that it was inconsistent with Texas state law. The court saw things differently, vacating EPA’s disapproval and instructing the agency to confine itself to deciding whether a proposed rule is consistent with federal law (as the Clean Air Act requires).

Just days later, EPA agreed to settle an action it had brought against Range Resources, a Texas natural gas company. EPA initially claimed that Range’s use of hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as “fracking”) had caused methane contamination of the local water supply.

Once it was proven that the methane in the aquifer had migrated naturally from an entirely different geological formation than the one from which Range was pumping gas, EPA shifted ground, claiming that the law didn’t require it to prove or even allege any connection between Range and the contamination.

Given the decided anti-EPA tenor of oral arguments, one can only assume that the agency opted to cut its losses, rather than suffer another legal defeat that could have significant implications for future cases.

EPA also suffered a major setback last December, when a court stayed the agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule less than two days before it was set to go into effect.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is supposed to regulate emissions from one state that drift downwind into other states, imperiling the latter’s ability to meet EPA air quality standards. While that sounds sensible, the reality is that EPA’s new rules are based not on what is happening today but on what its computer models predict may happen in the future.

Unfortunately for EPA, these decisions represent just
the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the agency’s potential legal woes.

Over the last three years, EPA has aggressively advanced an environmentalist agenda on a whole host of issues ranging from global warming to ozone. Many of these actions are now also being challenged in court, and involve the same flaws that led to the recent court losses.

If these first decisions are any sign of what is to come, EPA’s legal losing streak may be only just beginning.

Josiah Neeley is a policy analyst for the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
 
‹ Previous Blog Entry
 

Your Opinions and Comments

 
elizabeth riebschlaeger  
Cuero, TX  
July 6, 2012 3:36pm
 
It is a good bet that Mr. Neely and his associates at the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment are one a few of the many PR entities assigned to argue negatively with regard to the EPA's role in the energy industry. ... More ›

 
Elaine K.  
Floresville  
July 6, 2012 2:33pm
 
New post.

Share your comment or opinion on this story!


You must be logged in to post a comment.




Not a subscriber?
Subscriber, but no password?
Forgot password?

Commentaries Archives


Commentaries
Commentaries page govtrack.us
Commentaries who represents me?
Triple R DC ExpertsHeavenly Touch homeChester WilsonSacred Heart SchoolVoncille Bielefeld homeAllstate & McBride Realty

  Copyright © 2007-2015 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.